Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

11.4 a.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has a statement to make about the business of the House.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The House will recall that exchanges took place across the Floor of the House yesterday about the time to be devoted to the debate on the Report of the Bank Rate Inquiry.
The Government are still of the opinion that one day for this debate is adequate. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked that a Supply Day should be taken formally in order that a second day should be added for the debate on the Bank Rate Report. As Supply Days are at the disposal of the Opposition, this can be arranged.
It will not, however, be possible for a two-day debate on the Report of the Tribunal to take place next week and it is proposed that this debate should be held on Monday and Tuesday of the week after next, 3rd and 4th February.
This will mean a change in the business announced for Thursday of next week, which will be the first allotted Supply Day, when we shall take in Committee the four Civil Supplementary Estimates relating to Agriculture and Food Services. These Supplementary Estimates are contained in Paper No. 48 and were issued yesterday.
We shall ask the House to vote the money for these Supplementary Estimates.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (OMNIBUS SHELTERS AND QUEUE BARRIERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.5 a.m.

Sir James Henderson-Stewart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a modest Measure with a limited purpose, but I believe that if it is accepted by the House and operated with zeal by those concerned in Scotland it may well pave the way to the provision of much-needed amenities for large numbers of our people. I am glad to say that the Bill is supported by representatives of all parties in the House, and I thank them very much for their co-operation. It is supported by the Government. I think I can say that it has the blessing of the Scottish local authorities. In these unusually felicitous circumstances, I venture to hope that it may pass through all its stages quickly.
The problem posed by the Bill is one with which we are all familiar. Passenger transport by road is assuming ever larger proportions. I do not know the figures, but we all know that a very large part of our people move about by road transport, and in many country areas, especially since the closing down of rail services, road transport offers virtually the only means by which country men, women and children, can move about in their daily work.
On the whole, we have in Scotland a very good bus service. Scottish Omnibuses Ltd., which runs most of the services, is a very well-managed organisation and I know that it does its utmost to meet the needs of the people, but there is a profound and widespread conviction in Scotland that these bus services in country districts can be and should be a great deal better than they are. That is a matter which we have discussed more than once in the House and it would be attractive to discuss it again now, but it is not the issue before us today.
The Bill deals with a narrower point, namely, how in a limited field we can make those bus services, such as they are, more convenient and more comfortable to the travelling public. Without doubt,


one of the most acceptable and necessary improvements that could be made would be to increase the number of shelters where passengers could await their buses in reasonable protection against wind and weather. Anyone who has been in the North in the last day or two will have realised what rigours these conditions can create, and how much misery—and that is not an exaggeration—how much physical misery is caused to those who must hang about without any protection or cover, often for long periods in wintry weather, waiting for the bus to come along. That is something that we all understand and have experienced.
In the cities and burghs, such shelters exist in reasonable numbers. Where more are needed—and it may well be that many of us think that more are needed—the local authorities themselves already possess powers to erect them, but in the villages and along the country roads there is a chronic shortage of accommodation of this kind.
Why is that? The reason is an interesting reflection upon the present state of the law. It is not because those shelters are not wanted. They are. Ii is mainly because no authority—and in those country districts the authority is the county council or the district council—has the power to erect them. It really is a somewhat absurd situation that where shelters are most required, and most demanded, they cannot be provided because no public body may lawfully provide them.
We know, of course, that here and there, in a praiseworthy effort to improve themselves, villagers have clubbed together to raise funds and have erected shelters themselves, but difficulties very often arise in relation to maintenance, and in some areas there have been problems of rating and taxation that have made things still more difficult. The result is that relatively few shelters have been erected in that way.
By and large, it remains true that, throughout Scotland, progress is held up simply because powers to act are wanting. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) frequently draws our attention to the important part played in Scotland by the district councils, and I agree with him. I should tell the House that no one wants the powers contaned in this Bill more than do the district councils, and

perhaps nobody in Scotland would have a greater interest in, or do more towards providing the shelters.
The purpose of the Bill is to give to all Scottish local authorities the right, if they chose to use it, to "provide and maintain" such shelters
…in any highway within their district which is comprised in the route of public service vehicles…
The right conferred by Clause 1 (1) applies to all local authorities, but I should, perhaps, explain that, in practice, cities and burghs already enjoy the power to erect shelters under other Acts. Clause I extends that provision to county councils and to district councils, and, therefore, to all local authorities in Scotland. But it does more, and I wish to draw the attention of the House particularly to this matter.
The Bill enables any local authority—city, burgh, county council or district council—to co-operate with any other local authority, or, as the Bill says, with
…any person authorised to run public service vehicles…
This is a new provision, and I think that it should turn out to be a very valuable change in the law.
As hon. Members will recollect, the provisions that I have been describing were included in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, of 1953. Sections 4 to 7. The question is asked, "Why was Scotland not included?" The reason was that Scottish local authority organisations principally concerned the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of County Councils in Scotland—preferred, at that time, a different solution, so Scottish local authorities were excluded from that part of the 1953 Act and only authorities in England and Wales have enjoyed its permissive powers.
I have tried to find out how the Act has operated in England and Wales; how many local authorities have used it; how many bus shelters have been erected, but I am unable to give the House the actual figures. It is difficult to assess the exact effect that the Act has had in England and Wales, because that Act, like the present Bill, leaves local authorities as free as possible to do their proper business and they are not obliged to report to the Ministry upon this part of their operations. The Ministry, therefore, does


not have figures—they are not available anywhere.
All those whom I have consulted, however, and I have made it my business to make as wide inquiries in England and Wales as possible, are agreed that the extension of these powers south of the Border has encouraged local authorities to provide bus shelters, and has facilitated the co-operation of the bus companies with the authorities. I would hope that the same, if not more, advantage would be taken in Scotland of this provision, and I must just add that, no doubt, the powers in the English Act, and in this Bill, will be even more widely used once the present restriction on local authority borrowing can be relaxed.
When I was invited to sponsor this Measure, one of my first questions, naturally, was, "Why should it be for the local authorities to take the initiative? Why should not the transport companies put up the shelters for the benefit of their passengers, just as the railways provide them at their stations?" That, of course, was the thought in the minds of the Scottish local authorities when they rejected the offer of inclusion in the 1953 Act. They felt strongly then that the provision of such shelters should not be a local authority responsibility but should be made obligatory upon the bus companies.
As the House will recall, that question was discussed at some length during the passage of the 1953 Bill and, at the same time, it was reported upon by the Thesiger Committee, which was of great interest to all of us. In the end, it became apparent that considerable practical difficulties would arise in requiring bus operators to undertake this task, and Parliament therefore came to the conclusion that the powers proposed in the 1953 Act went as far as legislation could then reasonably go.
That view is now accepted by the Association of County Councils in Scotland. I trust that it will be confirmed by the House today. The Bill does not require the bus companies to co-operate, but it makes it possible and legal for them to do so.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Are the local authorities to understand that expenditure under this Bill will be included in the expenditure covered by the block grant?

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: What I wanted to impress upon the House was that the Bill does not require the bus companies—I am talking principally about Scottish Omnibuses Ltd., which runs practically all the buses in Scotland—to co-operate with the local authorities, but it makes it possible and legal for them to do so. I should inform the House that the British Transport Commission accept the provisions in the Bill. Therefore, it seems to me that it will be up to the local authorities in Scotland to persuade Scottish Omnibuses Ltd. to play its proper part. I personally hope they will and believe that the company ought to do that.
What I have been saying is all included in Clause I of the Bill. The only addition in Clause I to which I would direct attention is that where it extends the proposals to the provision of queue barriers and posts. Clause 2 makes the provision of facilities by a local authority subject to various consents. I think that that is the normal practice. These consents may not be unreasonably withheld, but they may be given subject to reasonable conditions. Provision is also made for the settlement of disputes between authorities and other bodies by arbitration.
Clause 3 protects the Postmaster-General and local authorities, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and public utility undertakers in cases where an authority has erected a shelter over underground cables, pipes, and so on, and access to this apparatus is subsequently required. Clause 4 provides for the maintenance of shelters which may have been erected without statutory authority and the maintenance of queue barriers which have been provided under the Defence Regulations.
Clause 5 contains the normal financial provisions and will enable any expenditure incurred by a local authority under the Bill to reckon for equalisation grants. Clauses 6 and 8, as the House will see, are formal.
If right hon. and hon. Members afford a Second Reading to the Bill, we shall no doubt examine its details in Committee. Subject to the Money Resolution—which I hope my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will move, and which I hope will be in acceptable terms—I should be glad, in


Committee, to consider any Amendments which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may care to put forward. I am anxious to make the Bill as effective and useful as possible. As I said earlier, it is a modest Measure. I believe that with the good will of all concerned, particularly my Scottish colleagues in Parliament, it may well be that this Bill will turn out to be a boon to tens of thousands of country dwellers in Scotland. I feel that this is a Bill that ought to be passed through the House and given legislative authority.

11.24 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: I beg to second the Motion.
In seconding the Motion, I should like first of all to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) on bringing forward the Bill. I think that everyone whose name appears on the cover of the Bill—which, of course, includes myself—is to be congratulated on collaborating in this enterprise. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is a modest contribution to the national welfare, and it must seem strange—it has certainly seemed strange to me—that by some hazard or, perhaps, deliberately the power to produce something as simple as a bus shelter has not hitherto been conferred on all local authorities in Scotland. It is the more strange when those same powers exist in England and Wales and were conferred in 1953.
My hon. Friend, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, has laid special stress on the position in country districts. My own interest in the Bill—which caused me to work very hard over a period of two years to get it drafted—arose from experience, not so much in a country area, but in a developing area. I was approached as long ago as 27th October, 1955, by a deputation from the East Kilbride Residents' Association. They were led by their vigorous and enterprising secretary, Mr. Hall. They came to see me to describe a number of current anxieties in this developing new town. Among them was their sense of the public need for bus shelters.
Following that deputation, I spent a very cold and very wet day in January, 1956, touring the so-called streets—they are practically meadows—in the new

town and observing for myself that it was physically impossible on a rainy day to stand for more than about five minutes waiting for a bus without getting at least partially soaked. Here was a crying public need, and, as my later investigations showed, the need was not only not being met, but the local authority associations in Scotland—that is to say, the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of County Councils—had actually declined to have conferred on all local authorities the powers to meet this need. It is not generally understood by the majority of our officials who necessarily live in towns, let alone by the majority of our public who necessarily live in towns which are well built up, how great is the need for this simple amenity in a developing building area such as a new town.
East Kilbride is now a town of about 20,000 people, but in 1951 when I first went there it was a town of little more than 1,500 or 2,000. It will ultimately be a town of about 60,000 people. In such a place, bus routes converge and the traffic of commerce and business and of going to and fro is done by bus. At East Kilbride there converge bus routes that go direct to Glasgow, Hamilton, Strathaven and Eaglesham. By those bus routes the people of East Kilbride, who have very few amusement amenities locally—there is no cinema—must travel for their entertainment, such as it is. To a certain extent, the young people of East Kilbride must journey by bus to school; and by that I do not simply mean by bus within the new town to schools that are rising in the new town, but, for example, to Hamilton to attend the Hamilton Academy.
The site is open in a fashion that those who live in a built-up area cannot picture. A road may be two or four carriageways wide, but the space on either side of the road may add up to anything from 150 to 200 yards. It means that between opposing rows of houses on either side of a highway there is an enormous space for exposure to wind and weather. It is not a simple matter of standing and sheltering in a doorway, as it might be, say, in London or Glasgow if one is waiting for a bus.
The normal way to the local hospital, Hairmyres Hospital, is by bus along one


of these open highways. One knows of persons who, perhaps with a high temperature or, at any rate, in need of attention, have been exposed to the wind and weather while waiting for a bus to take them to hospital.

Mr. Emrys Hushes: Has the hon. Gentleman any estimate of what this is going to cost Lanarkshire?

Mr. Maitland: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The answer is "No".

Mr. Dudley Williams: I am interested in my hon. Friend's reference to people with high temperatures having to wait for buses. How can that occur when there is a readily available ambulance service? I do not see why people should have to stand around in such distressing circumstances.

Mr. Maitland: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I refer him to the comment of the Home Secretary last night, that not everybody boils at the same temperature. The simple fact is that these needs exist, and in a developing area such as a new town the need is particularly urgent.
I do not think I need weary the Committee with a precise description of all the places in East Kilbride where, I think, bus shelters are needed. I know of some ten sites that were obviously in need of such shelters practically two years ago. What has emerged from one's study of this problem is the obstinacy of certain authorities. It is not without interest that when the new town of East Kilbride began to be built, the East Kilbride Development Corporation asked for and secured authority to put up three shelters as a matter of urgency. This was when there were still relatively few new houses, and there was a need to convey people to and from the building sites. Of those three shelters, two were put right in the middle of the town where, indeed, they were and are most needed. The third was put outside the East Kilbride Development Corporation's own offices.
The Development Corporation has pursued with some vigour and with its familiar resources the argument that the whole burden of providing shelters should he put on the bus companies, and in so doing it has seemed to me, at any rate, to overlook the valid arguments that were produced by the Thesiger Committee.
Then again, there has been the refusal of the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of County Councils in Scotland to accept these powers until quite recently. This surprises me, because we know that the Convention of Royal Burghs has a long and distinguished history of being one of the main forums, one might say, for expressing Scotland's interest in Scottish national problems. It is to me somewhat of a surprise that the Convention of Royal Burghs, normally so astute in its attention to public business, sometimes willing to look at matters outside the narrowest confines of local government, should in a local government matter have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the actions of its counterpart south of the border. Here is a case where Scotland has learned from the old enemy, and if the lesson has been rather tardily learned, at any rate it is a good lesson, that the local authorities should have these powers.
What is important to bring out is the weight of the Thesiger Committee's arguments. The relevant passage of the Thesiger Report on the subject of bus companies being required to pay for these shelters, paragraph 144, is quite explicit. The Report pointed out that if bus companies are to be required to provide bus shelters, all sorts of problems of priority as between competing claims would have to be established. How many must a bus company provide in order to qualify for its road service licence?
Then there is the problem where more than one operator uses the same stop. There is the question of sharing financial responsibility between different bus companies using the same stop and following part of the same route. Then there is likewise the question of apportioning the cost of maintenance as between different companies.
Then, as the Thesiger Committee pointed out in paragraph 144:
The strongest demand for shelters is in rural districts where the services are already less likely to be remunerative. Compulsion on the operator to provide shelters might therefore result in the withdrawal of a service altogether.
If one is going to force the bus companies to provide the shelters as a condition of receiving their road service licences, it would be necessary, no doubt, to specify the type and size of shelters to


be provided. Otherwise, as the Thesiger Committee put it in the same paragraph,
…the structure might be inadequate or even dangerous.

Mr. Dudley Williams: It might equally affect the local authorities.

Mr. Maitland: I am sure that my hon. Friend will allow me to complete my quotations from the Thesiger Report, to which. I know, he wishes to direct certain arguments of his own in due course.
Next there is the question of the operators needing, as they would in these cases, to be given a right to appeal against directions issued to them to provide shelters. Here again, the Thesiger Committee, with an acute sense of some of our thoughts in Scotland, comments that:
This would probably mean bringing to Whitehall disputes which are concerned with local amenities and which are essentially appropriate to be settled locally by agreement.
The same paragraph continues:
For these reasons, we do not recommend that there should be power to require the provision of bus stops and shelters as a condition of road services licences.
This Bill, of course, in the preliminary preparation of which I am proud to have played some part, leaves the way open for agreements between the local authorities and the bus companies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East, has pointed out, the British Transport Commission has accepted the principle that there should be some collaboration. We have thus advanced a considerable way towards a reasonable compromise between the two positions. What is also of interest in this connection is that, although the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of County Councils in Scotland refused to have these powers made available to them in 1953, the district councils were none the less in favour of them then and, of course, they welcome them now.
We all know—I rather suspect that I shall carry the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) with me in this—that the tendency in Scotland is to pay attention to the big battalions in the shape of the Convention of Royal Burghs and the County Councils Association and rather to brush aside the pleas we hear from time to time from the representatives of district councils. It is a common argument adduced by the Scottish Office to

say that the local authorities want so-and-so, when the fact is that not all the local authorities want it but it is only the strongest who want it. I am particularly happy, therefore, in this particular context, that we are doing something which will gratify the smaller local authorities, namely, the district councils, and, above all, we are doing it with the approval of the more powerful local authorities and the bus companies.
I do not wish to detain the House much longer, but, since the Bill does historically have its origin in the deputation brought to me—

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Oh.

Mr. Maitland: Yes, with respect; it does, in fact, historically have its origin in a deputation brought to me by the East Kilbride Residents' Association. I think it is only fair to express the hope that residents' associations in East Kilbride and elsewhere will note that it is not altogether useless to come to Members of Parliament, even though results are not immediate.
Here is a case on which we started working two years ago; and now we have at least got to the point that a Bill is brought to the House for Second Reading. I only hope that the residents of East Kilbride will be active, first of all, in supporting their residents' association in this and other public matters and, secondly, in pressing the local authorities to get on with the building of the shelters, for I have no doubt that every kind of argument will be used to delay and to push the thing completely on to the bus companies, to prevaricate by saying that the bus companies have not agreed to a portion of the cost, and so on. It is up to the residents of East Kilbride to press hard.
It may well be that, if the residents of East Kilbride had greater representation on the local authorities, they could make their voices better heard. Not very long ago, I received an approach from the East Kilbride Community Association asking for my help in efforts to secure the provision of two more county council electoral districts in this growing new town. I am bound to say that I replied by return of post last December, but I have not had any further answer from the residents' association. I hope that they will keep it


up, keep up their pressure on their Member of Parliament and on all public representatives. It is by such pressure-that democracy can be invigorated locally and kept alive.
There are other parts of the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire which will benefit from the Bill. Here I come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East. In the country districts, the Bill can be a very considerable boon. I am thinking of one particular place, Harelaw crossroads, where Councillor Monteith and his distinguished father have been pressing for years to have a bus shelter erected.
I am happy that a project of this kind has been so readily sponsored from both sides of the House, as the names on the back of the Bill bear witness. I am very glad to offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East, for taking the matter up. The Scottish Office is to be congratulated on its response to my own approaches and its known help in assisting me to have the matter brought forward.

11.47 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: All hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies in Scotland will welcome the general purpose of the Bill, inasmuch as we are all anxious to give necessary comfort and convenience to people who live long distances from the towns and who have to use the bus services. I certainly sympathise with the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) in his experience of having to wait on a bus route on which there was no shelter provided, though my sympathy is tempered by some measure of hope that, after the next General Election, he will not be called upon to wait at those bus stops so often.
I welcome any sort of initiative by hon. Gentlemen opposite in extending what is essentially public enterprise. Apparently, we are all Socialists now, even the hon. Member for North Angus (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley).

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley (North Angus and Mearns) indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman seems to disclaim any such views; at least, he was in favour of extending municipal enterprise in the last Bill with which he was associated on a Friday.
The subject matter of the Bill must have some relation to the general policy of the Government. Only yesterday there were fervid exhortations to us to reduce Government expenditure, yet the very first Bill introduced the next day, with the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite is a Bill which involves increasing local expenditure.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Not all local expenditure.

Mr. Hughes: Yes; it is Scottish Members who are interested in this Bill. We have to rule out certain misfits. We apparently overestimated the progressive instincts of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams).
What is the argument? Yesterday we were told that the immediate necessity is to reduce public expenditure, to save the £ and to stop inflation, and all Government legislation on local matters is to tell local authorities to keep down costs. Yet here we have, presumably at the instigation of the Government, a Measure which may involve local authorities in considerable expense and, as an old member of a finance committee, I am always asking where the money is coming from? When I asked the hon. Member for Lanark whether he had made any estimate of what this scheme was likely to cost the County Council of Lanark, he just slithered away and did not answer.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: I am sorry to cut into the entertaining diversion of the hon. Gentleman, but I did answer his question. The answer was, no.

Mr. Hughes: That shows the absolute irresponsibility of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maitland: There was no slithering. I gave a categorical reply.

Mr. Hughes: As Scottish Members we are entitled to have an estimate of the cost of any proposed legislation. I was interested to find out whether the hon. Gentleman had made any attempt to give an approximate estimate of what this would mean to Lanarkshire. For instance, will it mean anything on the district council rates? As hon. Members know, district councils are very limited in the amount of money they can spend. Here is a Bill in respect of which no estimate has been made of the expenditure involved, and I think that the promoters of the Bill should have made an effort to


obtain one. Certainly, if what is suggested here for East Kilbride is to be repeated over a large country like Lanarkshire, it must involve the county in considerable expense which will not be borne by the bus companies.

Mr. Maitland: It is plain from the Bill that the bus companies may share the cost, so it is not accurate to say now that the bus companies will pay nothing.

Mr. Hughes: Share in what? We have no estimate of the expenditure that is likely to be incurred. Suppose we try to look at this from the point of view of the next county, Ayrshire. I am all in favour of giving the rural population the necessary number of bus stops, because the climate is rather like the climate of Lanarkshire, only sometimes it is worse. I am sure, however, that the Ayrshire County Council, although it will be interested in this Bill, will immediately want to know how much expenditure is likely to be incurred on the provision of bus stops.

Mr. Charles Doughty: To assist the hon. Gentleman, may I draw his attention to the provisions of Clause 1 (2) under which, no doubt, the Scottish county councils who are providing the money can pass on the whole cost to the bus companies, thereby relieving the rates of that expenditure.

Mr. Hughes: If that had been explained earlier it would have enabled the hon. Member for Lanark to answer some of my questions, but, in any case, the local authority will be faced with a financial problem.
Suppose, for example, the Ayrshire County Council asks its county surveyor to present estimates and plans for a number of these bus stations. The county council will ask, can it be done under £100,000 for a county the size of Lanarkshire or Ayrshire? Then it will ask, "Where are we to get that amount of money?" Then somebody will ask. "Are we to borrow this at 6 per cent.?" Somebody else will ask, "Are we going to the Public Works Loan Board?" Somebody may then ask, "Will the Secretary of State for Scotland authorise the expenditure?" And in that case will the Secretary of State go the Treasury? At that point, are we to be told, "Oh, no, the time has come for reducing expenditure and this would result in inflation."
These are questions we want answered, and they are questions which inevitably will be asked when we come down to earth. At present, every local authority is having to face the fact that each item of expenditure has to be scrutinised closely because of the interest rates of 6 per cent. and 6½ per cent. With all the good will in the world, I cannot see this proposal materialising as long as the hon. Member for Lanark is in the present Parliament. So I suggest that when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill we shall assure local authorities that this expenditure will not be piled on them.
The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), who does not really know the Scottish local authorities, thinks that they will "pass the buck" to the bus companies. He may think he knows the Scottish local authorities, but he does not know the Scottish bus companies.
These are some of the snags in the Bill. Nowadays, when discussing the finance of any local authority in Scotland, we are asked to develop the local block grant. Recently, I have received strong representations from the Ayrshire County Council, who are much perturbed about the effect of that grant. They say that if the Government's financial provisions get on to the Statute Book the expenditure of local authorities will be limited considerably. This applies especially to education. Local authorities are not going ahead with schools, and if they are not going ahead with schools will there be any great enthusiasm for going ahead with bus stops?
I suggest, therefore, that while this Bill may be a very useful one, its financial implications should be examined carefully because they are utterly out of keeping with Government policy. The Government are not likely to help and the "buck" is likely to be handed on to the local authorities, who will have to pay large sums in high building costs and extortionate rates of interest. I hope, therefore that by the time we have examined this Bill it will be a little more acceptable to the local authorities.

11.58 a.m.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemslev: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) is very much


to be commended on his choice of a Private Member's Bill to sponsor in this House. I think he sensed, as I did when placed in similar circumstances two years ago, that if he brought forward a Bill that was likely to arise a great deal of controversy it would be unlikely to secure the time of the Scottish Standing Committee. He has, therefore, I think rightly, brought forward a Bill which he has described as a modest Bill and which I hope, with one or possibly two exceptions, will today meet with the approval of the House.
My hon. Friend was wise to do that because those of us who are members of the Scottish Standing Committee know that we shall be very much engaged in the months that lie ahead. Indeed, it looks as if we may well be in Standing Committee when the House rises for the Summer Recess. It is important, therefore, that the Bill should be one which is likely to command general acceptance.
I am a little perturbed by the fact that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has taken the line he has today, which is so reminiscent of the line he took in respect of my local government Bill two years ago. Indeed, so reminiscent is it that I begin to fear that he will try to hold up this Bill as he did the former Measure.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member will remember that I certainly took an interest in his Bill and that he thanked me for improving it.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I thanked the hon. Member for at last ceasing to speak throughout the whole of the morning's sitting, so that we might finally get the Bill through rather than have it withdrawn.
I believe that this Bill is likely to be acceptable. Unlike other legislation before us or coming before us in the Scottish Standing Committee, there is no body of opinion in Scotland which is opposed to this Measure. The Bill is supported by local authority associations and accepted by the British Transport Commission, and we all know there is a strong case for it in our constituencies.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire thinks that some blame attaches to the promoters for not having furnished them-

selves with detailed estimates of the cost of the proposals. He must have failed to notice that the Bill is permissive. It will, therefore, rest with local authorities whether they make use of the provisions or not. In such circumstances, it is impossible to make any detailed estimate of the cost. Such matters ought to be considered in local council chambers and not the House of Commons. We give the permissive powers, and it is for local authorities, through their elected representatives, to decide whether or not to avail themselves of the powers.
I do not think that the objection raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire is valid, but two valid objections to the Bill might be raised. The first is that the Government's new arrangements for local authority finance, the arrangements contained in the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill, might conceivably mop up all cases of this kind where permissive powers are given to local authorities, and that the Government might say, "In future we shall not give detailed block grants on fixed percentages of Government expenditure. We are substituting for that system a general grant which local authorities can allocate as they think fit between various local services. Local authorities will have greater responsibilities in future to decide whether to spend part of the money on bus shelters, private street works and other services which call for local authority expenditure."
I see the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) shaking his head. All I have said is that it might conceivably be argued that in comprehensive legislation dealing with local government finance, such as we are putting forward at the present time, these things might be dealt with together in a Clause. I do not think that it is too late to table an Amendment to provide that local authorities, since they will, in future, have power to spend public money as they think fit, shall be allowed to allocate money for the erection of bus shelters and other purposes.

Mr. T. Fraser: I was shaking my head because the Government are not prepared to include highway expenditure within the provisions of the general grant in the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I am not talking about a highway grant, but a grant for the erection of bus shelters, which is very different.
This is one way in which it might be done. It would seem sensible that when we give these new financial powers to local authorities a lump sum from the central authority should be provided together with a generous proportion of the proceeds of the rerating of industry, so that local authorities may be allowed to allocate the funds to certain services, including education, housing and the provision of bus shelters.

Mr. Fraser: Housing does not come within the general grant arrangement. Apparently the hon. Gentleman is merely saying that local authorities can build bus shelters out of the general grant. Such things are possible without a new Clause in the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill. Local authorities can use their rates and their general grant for what purposes they think fit so long as they have legislative power. If they have legislative power to erect bus shelters, they can spend some of the money upon bus shelters without requiring a new Clause permitting them to do so.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I was not going beyond that. Legislative powers are required. I was merely saying that one objection which might be made to the Bill is that such legislative powers might be included in a comprehensive Clause in the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill. Perhaps I expressed myself in a roundabout way.
I think it would be possible to object to the Bill and say that it is unnecessary because the Government are proposing new measures for local government finance in which they could insert a Clause giving local authorities power to spend funds as they desire upon such things as bus shelters. However, the Government have not done that, and so I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East is absolutely justified in bringing forward this Bill.
The second argument which might be advanced against the Bill has been dealt with fairly fully. It is that the bus companies themselves ought to do this work. That could be argued, but the contrary

argument is so convincing that I find it conclusive. The great need for bus shelters is in rural areas. Buses are few and far between in such areas, and in order to make sure of catching them people go to the bus stops in very good time and wait there, sometimes for long periods, perhaps in the hope that, by some miracle, the bus will be on time or even ahead of time. Where I live, about two and a half miles from a market town, we get a bus only every three or four hours. In such circumstances people will go to the bus stops early and stand about to make sure that they do not miss the bus. This applies particularly to children and very old people.
The Thesiger Committee was right in pointing out that the operating costs of bus services in rural areas are so high that there is a real danger that if the responsibility for providing bus shelters in rural areas is placed upon the companies it will be a matter of the last straw which breaks the camel's back, and we shall have no service at all.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not that argument also apply to ratepayers?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I do not think that the position is the same at all. There are a great many ratepayers, and bus shelters are not all that expensive, and the burden can be borne over the whole area of a county or district council. While I think it wrong to place the whole responsibility for providing shelters on bus operators, with other hon. Members from this side of the House I welcome the fact that the British Transport Commission has not objected to the Bill and has accepted it, since the Commission controls Scottish Omnibuses Ltd., which runs nearly all the services in Scotland.
My hon. Friend said that he was prepared to accept Amendments. It will be necessary for some of us to propose some Amendments to enable local authorities proposing to erect bus shelters to receive financial assistance not only from the bus companies, but from individuals and from others. I say from individuals because I have a case, which I know very well, of a friend of mine who is a landowner and who has near her property a crossroads which forms what is called a fare stage of the bus service. Because of the number of farms round about and


children going to school, at certain times of the day a number of people stand at this crossroads waiting for a local bus.
This lady thought that it would be a good thing if she were able to erect a bus shelter on a corner, and she spoke to many parents of children about it. There was an estate joiner and other people skilled in carpentry and brick laying and farm workers accustomed to doing a great deal of constructional work on farms. She said that she would provide the land, the timber, the plans and the consents. She went to an architect, who drew an attractive plan of a bus shelter made of timber and with three sides so that there was shelter from the weather. This plan was handed with detailed instructions to the people who were to make the shelter. The lady said that she would provide matured timber if they would do the work, but nothing more happened.
That may be an unfortunate example, but the point I want to make is that in many such cases contributions could be received from landowners and others. Very often the shelters will be on land adjacent to the highway and unless the land is given by the owner it will have to be acquired, presumably by agreement, because my hon. Friend has not inserted anything giving compulsory powers for the local authority to acquire land for this purpose. It may well be that the local authority ought to be able to accept gifts of land, perhaps even gifts of timber and materials and even of shelters.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: My hon. Friend will be aware that in certain cases ratepayers have voluntarily clubbed together to provide a shelter. The village of Chapelton is one example of which I know and no doubt there are many others. No doubt my hon. Friend's remarks would cover such a situation.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: That may well be so.
I said that the Bill might be extended to empower local authorities to receive gifts from individuals "and others" and I had in mind particularly one form of enterprise which might help. I have already said that the most effective shelters in country districts are those which have three sides—the back and two flanking walls—covered in against inclement weather and with a roof. It is

possible that advertising contractors would, with local authority consent and approval, be prepared to erect shelters of that kind in return for the facility to display advertisements of an approved form in frames, or in some other permanent form—not fly posting—on the internal sides of the three walls.
Many of us who travel by Green Line bus have seen excellent bus shelters which carry very good matter advertising London Transport Executive and rambles in the countryside, and so on. There are sometimes attractively coloured pictures in frames and plans of routes. That might be extended and, after all, these would be valuable advertising sites. The advertising contractors might send representatives regularly to change the advertisements. That would be revenue producing in certain areas and some big firms of advertising contractors might be prepared to shoulder the cost of putting up shelters because of the advertisements.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does this not mean more national expenditure? Is the hon. Member thinking of the argument of the poor Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: That is not a valid argument. We are not increasing expenditure, but providing for these shelters to be erected if the local authority so desires.
I conclude by saying that the Bill commends itself to me and I hope that it will to all those who have the interest of Scotland at heart because, first, it should be non-controversial; secondly, it is wanted by some public authorities at any rate and is not opposed by any; thirdly, its powers are permissive and not mandatory; and, fourthly and finally, in cases where it is operated it may do much to reduce the number of colds and what the medical profession describes as "complications" following colds and may greatly help many worthy folk, especially the very old and the very young.

12.19 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor: I had not intended to say anything on the Second Reading of this Bill, because I thought that the matters of detail could be more properly discussed in Committee. However, it is certainly a


temptation to a Scottish Member to take part in the debate on the Second Reading of a Scottish Bill and it is unusual for that temptation to be resisted. I confess that I have been unable to resist the temptation because of the speeches which have been made.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) should not be taken too lightly. We should not regard it as one of his normal impatient objections nor opposition for opposition's sake. He was on very good ground in what he said. Apart from the objection he raised, and the difficulties he described, the Bill will have universal approval because we all want more bus shelters, especially in rural areas. I was not surprised to hear him make the point about expense, because the same point immediately occurred to me. We both represent county constituencies. He has a long experience in local government, both in the county council and as a distinguished member—indeed, as provost for many years—of a small burgh.
There are six small burghs and one county council in my constituency, which is a fairly typical Scottish constituency. The county forms the constituency, and, therefore, consists of the county council and, within it, six burgh councils. None of those authorities is blessed with money to spare, at any time. At the present time, especially, the average small Scottish burgh is extremely worried. Nearly every one—and there are far too many of them—is worried about its financial position.
The question of the provision of bus shelters is a very old one. It has cropped up for years. Endeavours to provide them have been made time and time again. There must have been hundreds of discussions among local authorities and particularly town councils in small burghs on this subject. They have all fallen through when the question of who will pay has arisen. Everybody wants these shelters; nobody wants to pay for them.
At present, that fact will constitute a very grave handicap to the Bill becoming effective—because it is still only permissive. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) pointed out that Clause 1 (2) lays down that

any such agreement may in particular provide for the payment by the first-mentioned authority or person of the whole or any part of the cost of the provision and maintenance of the shelters or other accommodation, or barriers or posts
It is purely permissive. The difficulty is that there will be a continuation of the argument as to who will pay.
I was, however, extremely pleased to hear the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) say that the British Transport Commission had agreed to the Bill. That agreement may not mean very much; the Commission may very well think that it can safely agree with the Bill because it does not commit the Commission definitely to any expenditure, but, as it has hitherto been inclined to resist it, this agreement may be a useful sign.
The fact that the Bill has been discussed and passed in this House—as I am sure it eventually will be—will renew the whole question, and there is no doubt that we shall have a few extra bus shelters. I hope that we shall be able to devise some means whereby a definite method of financing this project can be incorporated into the legislation, with the approval of all the parties. Things have come to a rather sorry pass when we have to admit in this House that we cannot bring in a Bill of a definite character because it would not get through the Scottish Standing Committee. Eventually it would, perhaps, but it would take a very long time, and with all the other legislation there just is not time for it.
We shall just have to see how the Bill works. We shall have to hope that it will provide a large number of shelters, but it is quite clear to me that the seven authorities in my constituency will all have considerable difficulty in doing this work, and I am not very sanguine about any great amount of co-operation on the part of Scottish Omnibuses Ltd., although I may be pessimistic in that.
Bus shelters are for the benefit of the public, and I do not think that we should be pernickety about suggesting that ratepayers ought to pay at least a part of the cost. It is a dangerous thing to say, but I believe that ratepayers ought not to be too resistant to the idea of making some contribution, and it may be that the undertaking authority—which in nearly every case in Scotland will be Scottish Omnibuses Ltd.—will then be encouraged also to contribute.
I think that we ought to pay some attention to the point of view of that company. It is a very large concern and, although the travelling public in Scotland are under the impression that fares are high, those of us who travel about London and other parts of the country know that the Scottish fares are comparatively cheap; indeed, they are probably the cheapest bus fares in Britain. By a deliberate policy the company has endeavoured to maintain its fares at the lowest possible level. For long periods we have had to suffer the inconvenience of travelling in decrepit buses in order to maintain that cheap fare policy, but that day has gone and the general standard of the buses is steadily improving.
There are many new buses on the routes, and it may well be that the company will now claim that if it has to make a substantial contribution towards the provision of shelters the only way in which it can do so will be by increasing its fares. So the public is likely to have to pay—as, of course, it always does in the long run.
I also want to say a word about the design of these shelters. It is possible to put up a shelter very cheaply. The hon. Member for North Angus (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) referred to some of the very attractive bus shelters which exist in the London Transport area. There are one or two, but the usual London Transport bus shelter consists of four posts with a tin roof, which is almost useless as a cover except when the rain is coming straight down.

Mr. T. Fraser: It does not do that in Scotland.

Mr. Taylor: When a wind is blowing the shelters are not shelters at all, and anyone standing under them gets wet. Such shelters would be quite useless in Scotland because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has just stated, the rain does not come straight down in Scotland; it comes down at an acute angle. The three walls suggested by the hon. Member for North Angus are, therefore, an absolute essential, especially in the rural areas of Scotland. Design must enter into the question, and I imagine that we should all wish the design of these shelters to be a pleasing one and not a blot on the rural landscape of Scotland.
The hon. Member for North Angus should be most enthusiastic on that point, because of his well-known interest in town and country planning and the preservation of rural Scotland. If these shelters are left to be financed by hard-up local authorities, and especially by small burghs—who, at the present time, with a 7 per cent. interest rate, are having to canalise most of their expenditure into housing, and are reluctantly being forced even to cut down there—they will look askance at anything of this nature, which can be done without.
If public opinion induces them to provide bus shelters, my fear is that they will probably be of the cheapest and nastiest possible kind. We shall have to consider this matter in Committee to see whether we can prevent the unpleasant and ugly type of bus shelter being erected, especially in the small burghs.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Fife, East for appearing to damn his Bill with faint praise, or praise it with faint damns, when it is really a very useful Measure. I hope that the best intentions behind the Bill will be carried out. I am not quite sure that its genesis is as the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) claims. I do not think that it originated from the East Kilbride Residents' Association. However, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his adroitness in making an electioneering speech in the course of a debate on a small Bill of this kind.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Of course, I would not wish to take the major part of the credit for this proposal, but it happens, historically, that the matter does arise out of conversations which I had with the Scottish Office which themselves arose from suggestions made by the East Kilbride Residents' Association. The problem is a nation-wide one. Having said my piece, I do not want to claim any more credit for it, and am happy that the Bill is so warmly welcomed by the House.

Mr. Taylor: We will concede that point in part to the hon. Gentleman and after the General Election we shall recall that the great achievement of the former hon. Member for Lanark, as we shall then describe him, was that he sponsored a Bill which gave permission to the local authorities and bus undertakings to build


bus shelters in rural areas if they thought fit and found the necesary money to do so. It will be a very good political monument to the hon. Gentleman.
As there is no direct opposition to the Bill, I think that we should now hasten to give it a Second Reading and deal with the detailed points in Committee.

12.32 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) has said that there is no opposition to the Bill. As I understood the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), he was opposed to the Bill. Although I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) who has done much to introduce the Bill, to which, I suppose, some of his constituents are looking forward, it is my intention to do my best to see that it never gets on to the Statute Book.

Mr. Denis Howell: And no doubt the hon. Gentleman will see that no other legislation passes on its way to the Statute Book today.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in due course and to make his point. Interruptions of this nature only hold up legislation. Indeed, when such interruptions are made, one has to take rather longer in developing one's argument than one intended.
I understand that the Bill follows on facilities given to local authorities under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953. I wish to say right away that were the Government to introduce a Measure of that nature at this time I should find it very difficult indeed to give it my support. As hon. Members opposite mentioned, we have been asked to economise on Government expenditure. A very moving speech was yesterday made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) on this very point, a speech which I think commended itself to all right hon. and hon. Members of this side of the House. We now find that under the Bill we are to give permissive power to local authorities in Scotland to

embark on a vast programme of expenditure.
The hon. Member for West Lothian, who has just left the Chamber, said that he hoped to see large numbers of bus shelters appearing as a result of the Bill. All I can say is that such bus shelters will not appear without a considerable expenditure of money, and that in itself is most undesirable at the present time.
Another thing that I think one must bear in mind is the Government's proposal for the reform of local government finance. I have already made some criticisms of the detailed proposals in this respect. If local authorities in Scotland are to be pressed, as they will be pressed, by the people living within their boundaries to put up bus shelters, there will undoubtedly be pressure put upon the Government by Scottish hon. Members to change the basis of calculation of the block grant system which is now the feature of the Government's proposal for reform of local government finance. If this happens we shall have a bus shelter factor introduced into the whole question of the block grant system. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh at that, but it is a very valid point.
The intention now is that block grants should cover the major part of the activities of local authorities, and, of course, the greater part of block grants is used for education purposes. It is only fair, when we are trying to maintain the standards of education, that we should not put additional burdens upon local authorities. It is most unfair at this time to pass legislation which, although it certainly only gives permissive powers to local authorities, puts them in a position in which considerable pressure can be brought to bear upon them.
We all know to what pressures we as hon. Members can be subjected and how easy it is to give way. The moment any such surrender is made by a local authority in Scotland some other feature of local life will be bound to suffer. My fear is that the service which would suffer most would be the education service. That is why I oppose the Bill and why, in due course, I propose to ask the House to divide on its Second Reading.
I am surprised that in the Bill as drafted no definition is given of what is regarded as an effective bus shelter—


what sort of erections we want to see put up as a result of the Bill. That point was made by the hon. Member for West Lothian, who said that if we were not very careful only the cheapest structures would be erected and that these would be particularly hideous in Scotland. I do not know why that should be so in Scotland and not in Devon. Whenever I go to Scotland I can hardly stand up because of the wind.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: That is why we want the shelters.

Mr. Williams: I do my level best to get away from the place as soon as possible. As I say, there is no definition in the Bill of what is a suitable shelter. It might be four poles with a piece of tin on top. That, presumably, would come within the definition of a shelter.
Provision is made in Clause 1 (2) of the Bill in respect to
the provision and maintenance of shelters or other accommodation, or barriers or posts…
I should have thought that this was an important subject for which the Bill could have made provision, that it could have made provision for the adequate development of shelters by a body such as the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
I remember waiting in Devonshire for a bus, just after the First World War, to take me to where I was living at that time. I will not mention where the incident took place, because even after this length of time I do not want the local authority to feel that I was critical of the way it was administering its boundaries. There were a few bus shelters in those days. The bus shelter at which I was waiting at the time in question was constructed of wood. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark should suggest that bus shelters might be made of wood.
The particular shelter about which I am speaking was about 10 ft. high—much too high. At that time the local buses were of the type called T-4s. I expect that some hon. Members will recall the kind of thing that was. It had projections sticking out at the side. As a small boy I was there, waiting for the bus. Along came one of the vehicles to pick me up. The projecting part caught the shelter and threw the whole

structure over. It missed me. Only by good fortune have hon. Members today the opportunity of listening to me. Otherwise, my somewhat strange career would have been cut short.
It is essential to say what sort of shelter we ought to have. It is very disturbing to think that dangerous structures may be put up in Scotland. I feel very strongly for the Scottish people. I would not like structures to be erected which might endanger their limbs.
One or two other things about the Bill are confusing, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will spend a little time explaining them. Surely it is not necessary to consult all the authorities set out in Clause 2 (1) before a bus shelter is put up. The subsection mentions
The highway authority, the undertakers"—
not the sort of undertaker with which many of us are familiar—
the Minister
and other authorities. I hope that the Bill can be amended in Committee so as to give the local authority reasonable compulsory powers to acquire any land it requires for this purpose.
I find Clause 3 most disturbing, because it anticipates that shelters will be put up so as to be a nuisance to the Postmaster-General. It is undesirable that the shelters shall inconvenience a Government Department. I hope that this Clause can be amended in Committee, and that I shall be a member of Standing Committee C in due course, so that I can make my contribution to the Bill.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: The Bill may go to the Scottish Standing Committee.

Mr. Williams: I am not sure that I want to get on to that Committee, but I will try to do my best. The Postmaster-General should be asked to agree before shelters are put up. It is always disturbing when a local authority which has lust dug up a road has to go back a fortnight or so later and dig it up again.
Will my hon. Friend also enlarge on Clause 4, because I do not like the idea of Defence Regulations being continued? It looks as though the local authorities are simply taking over powers from the regulations. I do not like the sound of


it. It seems like a back way to carrying on the Defence Regulations.
There is no other point about the Bill that I want to refer to now. I emphasise what was said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire about the block grant. This is not the time for us to put additional burdens upon local authorities. For all these reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) will not make it necessary for me to take the matter to a Division, but, when the debate is finished, will withdraw the Bill.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) has exaggerated the importance and the cost of the Bill. I very much regret that he said that if the Bill were not withdrawn he would divide the House.
It would be unreasonable of him to do so. About four years ago a Bill was passed to give precisely similar powers to local authorities in England and Wales. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, and I cannot remember that the hon. Gentleman had any objection to granting the powers to those local authorities. I think he would agree that it is unfair now to deny to Scottish local authorities what he then agreed to give to local authorities in England and Wales.

Mr. Dudley Williams: The situation has changed considerably since 1953. There is now a drive for economy in a world which is becoming much more competitive.

Mr. Fraser: I do not deny that conditions are worse than they were in 1953—

Mr. Dudley Williams: I did not say that—

Mr. Fraser: Because we have had a Conservative Government all the time. It is understandable that the economic situation now is rather worse than it was then. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are legislating not only for 1958 but for years to come. It is doubtful whether a lot of bus shelters will be constructed immediately. It will take time for local authorities to negotiate with bus companies and others. My right hon.

Friend the Member for East Fife (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) is to be congratulated upon choosing this Bill when he had good fortune in the Ballot. I hope that the Bill will soon become law.
My hon. Friend said that the Bill had its origin in the deputation which he received in 1955 and that he had conversations in the Scottish Office following that deputation. I do not think the idea had its origin only in 1955, because many people had been canvassing it for a very long time. When the 1953 Bill was before the Committee I remember asking the then Under-Secretary—now the Minister of State—why these powers were being given to English and not to Scottish local authorities. The Minister said he would like to see the powers given, but unfortunately Scottish authorities were most unwilling to have them. I had to accept that explanation. I had already had discussions with the Lanarkshire County Council about the provision of shelters, and although it said the powers would be helpful, I found that the county council did not really want them because it considered that shelters should be provided by bus operators in the same way that waiting rooms are provided by railway authorities.
I well remember saying that the bus company might reply that it paid a lot of money in taxation, in petrol tax, fuel duties, Road Fund licences and so on and that motorists subscribed about ten times more to the national "kitty" than they get out of it in improvements of the highways. The reply I received was that the Government got the benefit of that money, not the local authority. The Government took the money from the bus companies in taxation which made it improper for local authorities to ask bus companies to provide the same accommodation for waiting passengers as was provided on the railways. The taxpayer, not the ratepayer, should pay for the building of the shelters. I could understand that attitude of the local authority, although I did not entirely agree with it. I thought it a good thing if they could have the power to put up bus shelters here and there.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire was not, as the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) said, a diversion. It was a


speech which applied itself to the conditions of today. My hon. Friend called attention to the stringencies imposed on local authorities. He was showing that it is all very well to make speeches saying that local authorities should do this, that and the other to increase and improve services available to the people, but when measures are taken making it impossible for local authorities to do that the Government are guilty of misleading the people. They would be guilty of a deception such as our Government say the Soviet Union are guilty of from time to time in their offers for consultation in order to ease world tension and so on. They would be guilty of giving us words unsupported by deeds. That was the sense of the contribution made by my hon. Friend.
In that connection, one thinks of legislation passed in recent years. A few years ago, under great pressure, we put through the Agricultural Roads Act. That was needed, not because we were economically strong, but because we were economically weak. We had balance of payments difficulties and it was necessary to increase the amount of beef produced in this country. We had to improve roads into livestock rearing areas. Grants were made from Government funds to enable that to be done.
We all co-operated on that Measure to get it through speedily, but nothing has happened. Because of the seriousness of the balance of payments situation and the situation at home, that Measure was made necessary, but then the position got worse and we could not afford to cure it ourselves. I think nothing has ever been done under that Act. Very little has been done under the Local Government (Street Works) (Scotland) Act, which was promoted by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) two years ago. That is because local authorities cannot afford to do the work.
As the hon. Baronet the Member for East Fife said, the councils most likely to take action under this Bill if and when it becomes an Act are district councils. Those authorities have been anxious for this legislation. I have been to their conferences at which speeches have been made and resolutions passed calling for these powers. I think that with the exception of only one councillor out of

several hundred the district councils were unanimously in favour of having this power.
It has been suggested that councils might get some assistance to finance these activities from the new general grant. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns suggested that it might be possible to introduce a new Clause to deal with that position. Although I seemed to reject what he was suggesting, I think I can offer him a way out of the difficulty. Under a Bill now before the House, district councils are having taken away from them grants they received under the Physical Training and Recreation Act and they are offered nothing in return. I invite the co-operation of the hon. Member in ensuring in Committee that provision may be made in the general grant for district councils, which are the authorities which want to build these bus shelters, to enable them to do so after power has been given.
I mention a difficulty in my constituency to show in what way I think things may go wrong with this Bill. I am not opposing the Bill; I very much want it. I have had discussions from time to time with the bus company, the Central S.M.T., and with Lanark County Council, about the need to build bus shelters outside some of the big factories on industrial estates, particularly where large numbers of girls are employed. Those girls when they leave work, hundreds at a time, sometimes have to stand waiting for a long time in very inclement weather at a bus stop. The bus company could not erect shelters and the county council said it had not the power, and in any case did not want to do so. It had too many other claims and could not decide on its priorities.
One of these bus stops is in Larkhall outside a large factory operated by Simpsons, the clothing people. They employ many hundreds of girls. Immediately behind the factory there is a large housing scheme, the Hareleeshill housing scheme, where the district council wants to build a hut for aged people. It would cost about £600 to provide such a centre for old people to meet there in the evenings. There is no public hall of any kind in the housing scheme. The old people ought to be able to meet together from time to time. The district council cannot meet the expense out of revenue and


the Joint Under-Secretary has explained to me that the council cannot be given borrowing consent.

Mr. James Griffiths: It has been turned down?

Mr. Fraser: It has been turned down. If the district council had power to build bus shelters and were able to do so without seeking borrowing consent it might do so, but if not, I hope that if the Joint Under-Secretary has to decide on the priority he will put the needs of the old people before those of the girls working at the factory. I fear, since bus shelters cost less to build, that they will be given priority, especially if the council does not need to seek consent to borrow as it would need in the case of the hut for the old people. I think that local authorities might be put in the position of getting the priorities wrong as a result of that.
This position of stringency will not always be with us, nor will the present Government. There will be a change, I think, with the change of Government. I therefore want this Bill to be passed and placed on the Statute Book. I am very pleased to see that the Secretary of State has been able to put a Money Resolution on the Order Paper to make provision for expense to fall on the Exchequer arising out of the Bill. That makes it clear that the Bill has the backing of the Government. We on this side of the House give it our blessing and congratulate the hon. Baronet on having introduced it. We hope that the views of the hon. Member for Exeter will be rejected by the Joint Under-Secretary and that the Bill will become law.

1.2 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): Let me say at once that the Government fully support the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) on his fortune and wisdom in introducing it.
I should like to clear up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), who claimed that the Bill was the result of his efforts arising out of a request by the tenants at East Kilbride. From my narrow point of view, what he says is substantially correct. He came to me and asked for a bus shelter and, through the

normal office channels, I gave him the reply, "I am sorry. We cannot do this because there are no powers." Hon. Members on both sides of the House know my hon. Friend to be an insistent fellow. He would not take "No" for an answer. Finally, he got me to the stage where, if it were the last thing which I would do as Joint Under-Secretary, I was determined to see this Bill on the Statute Book. I must give him both credit and my thanks for his backing.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) were for a moment strange bedfellows. They both appeared to confuse themselves and the House by trying to draw an inconsistency between the national need for economy and the permissive powers in the Bill to erect shelters. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, referred to the fact that the Bill was likely to become more fully operative when the financial climate became easier, a point of view which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) supported.
We do not know exactly how much bus shelters will cost. They can be of varying types and sizes. They can be either simple barriers or complete glass enclosures with roofs. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) was right when he said that local authorities would he free to determine their own priorities in this matter. As far as we can see, an authority which erected one to three of the most urgently needed shelters a year would spend about £1,000 a year. I want to get the figures in perspective in the mind of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What are two or three shelters in Lanarkshire?

Mr. Browne: We must go quietly and steadily forward in making progress. Borrowing for expenditure on bus shelters, as the hon. Member for Hamilton rightly said, would require my right hon. Friend's consent, and, as he again rightly said, any application would have to be closely scrutinised in the present circumstances. It does not follow that the most urgently needed shelters could not be fitted into the capital investment programme even now. No doubt the


Measure will not take full effect until times are easier, but, as the hon. Member for Hamilton rightly said, we are already five years behind England and Wales in this matter, and it would be wrong to reject the Bill, which will do permanent good, simply because of our immediate economic difficulties. If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire goes back to his constituency, as I know he does every week-end, I think he will find, on talking to his constituents, who have waited so long for these shelters, that they wish that at least the powers to provide them should be available.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My constituents are perturbed because the hon. Member's Department refused to grant £25,000 for necessary works at Girvan. If they cannot spend £25,000 at Girvan, what hope is there of bus shelters?

Mr. Browne: They would prefer that the powers should be available rather than that there should be no powers. As the hon. Member knows, we pay great attention to anything he puts up to us on behalf of his constituents.
The financial position is as follows. The four cities which have transport undertakings already provide shelters out of the funds of these undertakings. Other burghs provide shelters under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and the expenditure ranks for equalisation grant if the local authority qualifies for that grant. Similarly, any shelters provided under this Bill by local authorities which qualify for equalisation grant will attract that grant. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife said, Clause 5 (b) provides for any necessary addition to the grants for this purpose.
If I remember it correctly, the hon. Member for Hamilton said that the general grant does not come into the picture; this is not one of those services which will be taken into account when fixing the amount of the general grant. I should tell him that it would not be practicable to allocate to district councils any particular percentage of that grant—

Mr. Fraser: District councils provide playing fields and public parks, which are covered by the new general grant. It is not proposed in the Bill as at present drawn to give any general grant to district councils in respect of that provision.

Mr. Browne: I do not think I could go into the merits of the Bill dealing with the general grant. I think that the district councils will do all right just the same.
On the surface, this looks a simple enough little Measure, but the policy which it seeks to enact has had a long and chequered career, and I think it would be wise to get the position on the record. Before the passing of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, which, as has been said, applies only to England and Wales, the provision of bus shelters, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) said, has been for many years a subject of lively and sometimes heated disagreement. In the early days of road transport, the buses were run mainly by private operators, and the local authorities considered, I think quite rightly, that as the operators made the profit they should provide their customers with facilities such as shelters.
With the growing control over bus operation by the Ministry of Transport and by local authorities the situation changed. Furthermore, bus routes were increasingly taken over by the local authorities themselves. It was only to be expected, therefore, that the private operating companies would be increasingly less inclined to provide shelters when their operations had become more restricted and less secure. The travelling public, rightly or wrongly, expect a higher degree of service from their local authority than from a private operator, and there were increasing demands for shelters on routes where local authorities controlled the buses.
Until 1953, no one in England and Wales, or in the Scottish counties, it appears, had any legal right to erect or maintain a bus shelter in the highway. The English Act of that year did not attempt to make this mandatory, but gave the local authorities permissive powers to erect shelters, or take them over by agreement with others concerned; or make agreements with bus operators or other local authorities to share the cost. The exact terms of any deal were, wisely, I think, left to each individual case. The hon. Member for Hamilton gave us the history, and I will not go further into it. His knowledge is greater than mine.
Before the Bill was passed, the Scottish local authorities were asked whether they wished to come in. We would have liked them to have come in and we were sorry when they decided not to. They felt, at the time, that without specific aid from the taxpayer, this was not an obligation they were prepared to accept, even on a permissive basis. So the position in Scotland, until today, is the same as it has been since the beginning of public road transport.
Until this Bill is passed, I shall, probably as a result of pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark, have the thought in my mind of how foolish we should all feel if a visitor from another planet were to visit one of our county areas in Scotland. He might see people standing in the rain waiting for a bus, and he would ask, "Why not give these poor people a shelter?" The answer he would have to be given would be that no one has any authority to build one. It is true that all we would be able to say would be that county councils and district councils have wide responsibilities for the area, but they can do nothing about it. I think that the interplanetary traveller might he forgiven for deciding that his wisest course would be to return whence he came. He could expect no commonsense here.
I have referred to counties. This Bill includes burghs as well as counties—but hon. Members will have seen bus shelters in many Scottish towns. How then, one might ask, have the burghs managed to provide these shelters? The answer lies in a court decision defining the powers of Section 110 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and Section 104 (2) of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903. I sympathise with hon. Members who may, not unreasonably, wonder what these provisions have to do with sheltering bus travellers from the elements, and perhaps the House will bear with me if I read out the relevant sections, which are not without interest.
Section 110 of the 1892 Act provides that:
The Commissioners may erect or continue public water closets or earth closets, and latrines and urinals in suitable places…

Section 104 (2, b) of the 1903 Act provides that:
section 110 shall extend to lavatories, waiting-rooms, and other similar accommodation.
In the case of Cumming v. Magistrates of Inverness, the learned sheriff decided—and three eminent judges of the Court of Session agreed on appeal—that the power to provide waiting-rooms included a power to provide waiting-rooms which were not attached to a public convenience. In the words of the late Lord Cooper:
…these provisions are sufficiently wide to authorise a local authority to erect an omnibus shelter.
Thus, it was only through this loophole in laws framed before bus shelters were ever thought of that some comfort was provided for at least the burghal section of the Scottish travelling public.
So far, this is a sorry tale, but, of course, it has its brighter side. Under their own private Acts, the cities have taken powers to provide shelters. Elsewhere, in many instances in the counties, private funds have been used by inhabitants who had resigned themselves to the fact that if they wanted a bus shelter they would have to pay for it themselves. In some cases, community funds—such as the balance of funds raised at the Coronation—were used for this purpose. The shelters were, of course, technically illegal. Those who provided them had to maintain them themselves, which was also technically illegal. In some cases, the passing of the benefactor has meant that the shelter he provided is now almost in ruins. I hope that some of these shelters will be maintained, if only as monuments to private initiative and public irritation.
I think that we are all pleased to see the district councils in the Bill. The part that each district council plays in helping the county authority depends on local circumstances. The division of responsibility is never easy. In this case, the Association of County Councils has welcomed the part that the district councils can play. The local people whom they represent, know best where the shelters are needed. I believe that the district councils will, as a whole, gladly take on this small but important responsibility, and that they will do well.
The hon. Member for West Lothian spoke about the importance of design


I agree with him that smart, well-maintained shelters can give both pride and satisfaction to the local people. This Bill, of course, does not, and should not, specify any details about the shelters to be built, but, on this, I think that now is the appropriate time to say a word about the shelters themselves.
I have vividly in mind a most elaborate shelter in concrete and glass, with delicately curved ends and a full length seat. It was a noble and an expensive edifice, worthy of any locality, yet it brought the people who lived near it almost to nervous breakdowns until it was taken away. It was sited immediately opposite somebody's front door, outside which there was, therefore, nearly always a small crowd. It was such good protection from the elements that, both summer and winter, it was a goad place in which to drink ginger pop and eat ices, the residue of both of which found its way into the front gardens.
The glass windows were a temptation that the "kids" just could not resist and, when night fell and the buses became less and less frequent, the busy chatter and life around the shelter was replaced by the whispering of lovers, who found the seat and the seclusion ideal. Finally, when all was still except for occasional footsteps going down the silent street, the footsteps would stop near the shelter, their owner finding it a convenient place to answer a call of nature. With the best intention in the world, that shelter was everything it should not be. It was unnecessarily expensive, badly-sited, and incorrectly designed—

Mr. T. Fraser: Who are the spoilsports who removed this shelter?

Mr. Browne: I am giving no particulars, but the story is true.
When local authorities come to build or to help in the provision of shelters under the powers which this Bill would confer upon them, I hope that they will not repeat that sort of mistake. To help all concerned, and if there is a request for such advice, the Scottish Committee of the Council of Industrial Design has illustrations of shelters of suitable types to meet the varying needs of the travel-

ling public, together with information about the firms that manufacture them. The Committee tells me that it will be very willing to make this material available to any local authorities that propose to build shelters under the Bill. The Committee is rightly concerned about the question of design. For the sake of the record, its new offices and new display premises are at 46, West George Street, Glasgow.
A shelter that is cheap, that is easy to erect, has a long life and can be easily maintained can still give all the facilities needed. Furthermore, with care in design and choice of colour, it need not be a blot on the landscape, even if it does not exactly enhance the view.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns mentioned advertising. Personally, I am not averse to a little judicious advertising inside the shelters. At least people would have time to read the adverts, but, of course, I realise that there might be other views. I know that this has already been done in various places, and I have not known it to spoil the amenities of the shelter. Like my hon. Friend, I have often found the most surprising and interesting information in the form of bus shelter advertising in London. I can recommend it to anyone who would like a little bright reading.
To conclude, as my hon. Friend has said and as the speeches with one exception have confirmed, we have here an agreed Measure. All the Scottish local authority associations, both sides of the House and all the travelling public in Scotland welcome the Bill. There will be certain matters of detail to iron out in Committee, but I feel sure that the day will come when, in recognition of his efforts, a local authority will ask my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife formally to open the first legally-erected bus shelter in any county of Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

DOUBLE DEATH DUTIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

1.24 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a Bill to
reduce death duties in cases where two or more persons perish as a result of a common calamity.
I must start by apologising, for having a rather severe cold. It may mean that my voice may not carry through to the end of my speech. Having listened all about bus shelters, I feel sorry for myself for the lack of shelter on my way back from Hong Kong in the last seven days which has resulted in this particularly unpleasant feeling.
The Bill is very short and very simple, but it is necessarily one that covers the whole of this very serious problem. It seems to me that all questions that might arise would be dealt with more appropriately in a Finance Act rather than by a Member bringing forward a Private Member's Bill. On the other hand, this is one of the opportunities Private Members get to bring forward a Measure which, I hope, can be a stepping stone to something much more important.
I also feel it is important that this matter should be aired today, especially as we have had in the not very distant past one or two quite prominent cases which have made people feel that the present situation is extremely unfair. Another point is that the tax-gatherer spends almost the whole of his time, while husbands and wives are alive, trying to bring them together to obtain as much taxation as possible out of them. The moment they die, far from following the same procedure, he does everything he can to separate them and make them pay at least two death duties. It seems to me that he should be logical and come to the conclusion either to bring people regularly together in life and death or separate them both in life and death, as he tries to do after death today.
It also seems to me that the main object of death duties—which, after all, only follow the historical method of fines which were used in the old days—is so

that people, when they come into property and are about to enjoy it, shall pay a form of levy to the State because they are about to enjoy it. When it comes to people dying almost at the same moment and, possibly, from the same cause, there can be absolutely no question that the second person does not receive any enjoyment. That being so, it is grossly unfair that the State should demand that the tax should be levied, whether it is, as at present, 50 per cent. in the first year for certain types of property and 10 per cent. spread over the first five years. The very fact that it should be taken at all, with people who are dying possibly in the same minutes, seems to me to be grossly unfair.
These things may not have happened so very often in the past, but they are beginning to happen more frequently now, with aeroplane crashes, motor car crashes in which husband and wife and, indeed, whole families may be involved, and appalling railway accidents, like Lewisham. One must think of these appalling tragedies now taking place because of the faster methods and more modern methods of transport, which, of course, are more dangerous.
I first noticed this unfairness when the son of an old friend of mine some years ago went with his young wife for their first visit to France. On their return, the plane crashed at London Airport, caught fire and they were both killed, leaving a considerable family with not much money, made much less by death duties. Luckily, they happened to belong to a wealthy family connected with the Press and something was done for them privately. That will not happen in every case. Then there is the now famous case of the Beare family, to which I will return in a few minutes.
Shortly after I put down the Bill for First Reading there was a very serious seaplane crash near the Isle of Wight in which no less than six couples were killed. Three of those couples were on their honeymoon. One of those couples came from my constituency. I believe that if the old common law had been in practice the man's estate would have gone to his relations and the wife's estate to her relations. Under the present law everything went to the wife and, through her, eventually to her family, although


the property belonged to her husband. That does not really come within the scope of my Bill, but I should like to bring it to the notice of the Financial Secretary, as it is a matter on which I think he might well ponder.
The case that has caused most publicity and one which led me to produce this Bill, together with the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) asked me to do so—and he is largely responsible—was the case of the Beare family. That so upset many people that, as will be seen from the backing of this Bill, it has the support of two prominent Labour Members, one prominent Liberal Member and nine Members of my own party, some of whom are well-known lawyers.
The Beares were husband and wife who were motoring somewhere near London and met with an accident in which their car overturned into about three feet of muddy water. The husband was hit on the head, as it was afterwards discovered at the post mortem examination, and knocked completely unconscious. The wife was not. When, however, they were found they were both already dead. The medical evidence proved that by the husband being unconscious—they were both drowned in three feet of muddy water—he would not have tried to breath in the muddy water unduly fast, whereas the wife, being completely conscious, would make a mad effort to try to get air and in that way would use up the oxygen in her body, and so it could be proved that she died first.
However, the judge, seeing that it was only a question literally of a few minutes, had to take the law as it stands under Section 184 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, which proved that the husband was the elder, as he was by about seven months, and that therefore it must be presumed that he died first. That being so, he had left a will leaving everything to his wife who was the sole executrix.
There again double death duties became payable. There were four infants to lose not only their parents but, in addition, a very large percentage of any money that might be available for their education and upbringing, which seems to me to be particularly unfair. However, there was nothing that could be done about it under the law as it stands at present.
There was a long correspondence about this in The Times which showed how other countries deal with this sort of matter. It was pointed out that in Germany both are considered to die as one, and reference was made to a case of some German refugees who were killed in this country during the war and who were allowed to be treated as if they were German. More or less the same law applies in other countries—for instance, in Greece, Italy, Holland, Switzerland and China.
In the Dutch law there is a provision, saying that in the event of a number of persons, one of whom is entitled to inherit before the other, dying in one and the same accident, or on the same day, without it being possible to ascertain who died first, the assumption is that they deceased at the same moment and no devolution of the estate of the one takes place on behalf of the other. There are other countries which are already agreed on the basis that they die as one. I believe that we ourselves have begun to realise that that is a more just state of affairs because in the case of intestacies the intestate gets off. According to the First Schedule of the Intestates' Estates Act, 1952, that is what happens. If Mr. Beare had not left a will at all, but had been intestate, none of these financial tragedies would have happened to their children.
In France a different view is taken, but I believe that the French themselves consider the situation to be extremely unsatisfactory and are attempting to alter it. They go on the basis of the survival of the fittest, and they work it out in this fashion. If a person is under fifteen years of age at the time of death, the elder survives. Between the ages of 15 and 60 the younger dies first, but males are presumed to come before females because females are not considered to be so fit. Over 60 it seems that the youngest, whether male or female, survives. That is the position at the moment in foreign countries but what about our own country.
I am not trying to bring forward a Bill which will cover all the many problems involved. I am merely seeking to bring forward one side of the situation. The Bill might easily be amended one way or the other in Committee, and, indeed, it


could possibly be dealt with in the next Finance Bill if the Government should think fit.
I have called this
A Bill to reduce Death Duties in cases where two or more persons perish as a result of a common calamity.
It may be asked, why must it be a common calamity? If the husband is killed in a motor accident and somebody tells his wife who collapses at the news and dies, it is the same tragedy but it is not the same common calamity. One can always find these detailed problems which are heaven to lawyers but a little difficult for the ordinary layman completely to understand. However, I have brought in this Bill to deal with a common calamity, to confine it to one particular issue as in the case of the Beare family and as might arise in a bus or aeroplane accident.
I have said:
Where, in the case of deaths occurring after the commencement of this Act the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are satisfied that…Estate Duty has become chargeable on any real or personal property passing on the death of any person…
Up to now they have always been able to get off 50 per cent. in the case of business and land, and it seems to me that they should be able to get 50 per cent. or more in the case of any real or personal property.
I have used the words:
within one month thereafter Estate Duty has again become chargeable on the same property or any part thereof.
If I am asked why I have chosen the period of one month I would reply in this fashion. Suppose that in a bus accident in which six couples are killed, four die within the month and the fifth dies just after it. It would become unfair. It is true that in Committee we may alter the period so that it becomes one day as it is in other countries, or longer than a month, or we may introduce a graduated scale. I should think that could easily be left to the Committee, but one has to state some period of time in the Bill, and one month was the period which seemed the most reasonable to me.
There is the possibility that, between the death of one and the other, the estate may go up in value. Not unnaturally, I ask only for the duty to be taken at the figure it was at the start. Finally, we

have chosen 95 per cent.; this is just a figure, and again it can be gone into later on.
Even though the present position may be legally sound, it seems to me to be morally right that such a Bill as this should be brought in and, in some form, incorporated in the law of the land. The Treasury will, no doubt, say that there are appalling difficulties and that, if we do one thing or another thing, we shall be opening the floodgates to various other problems. My answer to that would be that, from the moral point of view, it is up to the Government to try to do something about it. I leave the matter, therefore, in his way, that I very much hope that I shall have the support of the Government and the Treasury. The moral issue ought to be settled and the position made a great deal fairer as it affects the estates of people who die more or less at the same time.

1.41 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mathew: I beg to second the Motion.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) on using his good fortune in the Ballot to attempt to effect this very necessary law reform. During the last year, in particular, there has been a great deal of publicity about the legal results of tragedies occurring in consequence of motor car, aeroplane and other accidents. We have fresh in our minds the recollection of the two accidents to which my hon. Friend referred, the Lewisham railway accident and the Isle of Wight air accident. My hon. Friend referred partticularly to the case of In re Beare, a case which prompted a great deal of correspondence in the Press. Many hon. Members, no doubt, received a great number of letters, as I did, from constituents who were very shocked at the legal consequences of that particular tragedy.
Today, not only the lawyers and the tax experts but more and more people generally are becoming aware of what is, in fact, a manifest injustice. In cases of double death resulting from an accident, and the consequent quick succession of property, the operation of the law is such that the State automatically—indeed, cold-bloodedly—may add to the troubles of a family which


has already suffered almost unbearable loss and sorrow the further disaster of material hardship or ruin. In my opinion, there can be no principle of law or equity to justify the continuance of this state of affairs.
Hon. Members will know that the legal problem resulting from quick succession has a long history. Various aspects of the matter have occupied the attention of the House from time to time ever since we passed the Wills Act in 1837. A number of limited reforms have been effected over the years, but in rather piecemeal fashion; for instance, under Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1914, partial relief from double duty is allowed on a graduated scale in the case of individually owned land or business property.
Perhaps I might say here that, although the Bill does not deal with that particular type of exemption, there is, of course, a very strong case now for extending the graduated relief to all classes of property when there is a quick succession. That, however, is a much wider matter than that contained in the Bill before us, and I think that the House might well consider that such wider reform would be unsuitable for a Private Member's Bill. I merely draw the attention of hon. Members to it, if I may, particularly the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
It is an odd reflection on the operation of the law that the calamitous results of the Beare tragedy might have been avoided had Mr. Beare, the father, made no will at all. In those circumstances, under the Intestates' Estates Act, both husband and wife would have been deemed to have died second from the point of view of his or her estate.
As my hon. Friend has stressed, in an age of fast travel by motor vehicles and aeroplanes, accidents being inevitable, the time has come for the House to make a further amendment to Estate Duty legislation. The scope of the Bill is deliberately limited to cases arising out of a common calamity or accident.
There has been criticism of the Bill, but, as far as I have heard it, that criticism nearly always stresses that the Bill does not include this or that hypo-

thetical case; in fact, the criticism is directed not at what the Bill seeks to do, but at what it omits.
There has not at any time been an intention to include exemption in the case of certain other anomalies and injustices which arise out of quick succession and double death. The Bill does not attempt to deal with the case of a husband and wife who died from different causes within a short period of time. Criticism of it upon that ground appeared in a leading article in The Times, which commended the Bill as a step in the right direction, and which was, I think, published on 21st December last year. There is, of course, a very strong argument for including some such provision in any broad reform which the House may favour in the future.
It has also been suggested that the blame for the unhappy result of the Beare case lay in the fact that the father did not make a sensible will, that he did not draw up his will in a different form. It is said that if he had, as many do, inserted a proviso that the property should not pass unless his wife survived him by a stated time—say, one to three months—the results would have been not so unhappy.
There is a difficulty there, to which I have no doubt some of my hon Friends who are lawyers will refer. It is an administrative difficulty; the period must be short, and I am told that anything longer than three months causes the very greatest difficulty to those administering the estate. It is said also that Mr. Beare did not take advantage of the exemption from Estate Duty which is usually referred to as "the surviving spouse exemption."
I cannot see that the onus for avoiding what is recognised by a large number of people as a manifest injustice should be placed by the State on the shoulders of the individual. There is a principle here to which the House should pay attention in considering any reform of the law in this connection, and I will indicate briefly what I consider the principle should be.
Estate Duty is a tax on the passing of property and, as my hon. Friend has already indicated, in this particular aspect it is on the passing of property where there is a change in the enjoyment of property on a death. In my opinion, it is clearly unjust that where a person dies


so soon after another and, although normally entitled to the enjoyment of property on that other's death, he could never in reality have had an opportunity of enjoying it. In such a case, as the House has heard, two lots of duty are payable, and they are payable in respect of only one real change in the enjoyment of that property.
This short Bill attempts to bring the law into line with that principle. It only does so, however, in the restricted class of cases where the death of the two persons is caused by one and the same calamity. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, if he should intervene in this debate, will invite the House to give the Bill a welcome.
In asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, I also ask the Financial Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider a wider exemption in all cases where two material deaths occur so close together that the second deceased never had any real opportunity to enjoy the property. By doing so we would remove what is universally recognised by an increasing body of responsible opinion in this country to be a manifest injustice.

1.54 p.m.

Major W. Hicks Beach: I will begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) on the able way he has introduced this rather complicated Measure. He said that it was a legal matter, as, largely, it is, but I join with him in agreeing that it is also a human matter.
The object of the Bill is to remedy an anomaly or injustice which arises under the Estate Duty law when two people die as the result of the same accident. I stress that it applies to two people, not only a husband and wife, because an interesting article which was in The Times of 21st December, giving full support to the general principle of this Bill, appeared to suggest that this anomaly applies only where a double death occurs as between a husband and wife and not in the case of ordinary individuals. Of course, as the law stands, it applies to any two persons.
This position has arisen from the passing of Section 184 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, a Measure which changed to

a great extent the conveyancing law of this country. It was a well-founded Measure. Although I was not practising as a solicitor at the time, I was an articled clerk. Sir Arthur Underhill was responsible for this Act to a great extent. I mention this because I think it would be appropriate to recount a conference I had with the late Sir Arthur Underhill before 1930, when this Section of the Act was discussed. It is very short and clear, and runs as follows:
In all cases where, after the commencement of this Act, two or more persons have died in circumstances rendering it uncertain which of them survived the other or others, such death shall (subject to any order of the court), for all purposes affecting the title to property, be presumed to have occurred in order of seniority, and accordingly the younger shall be deemed to have survived the elder.
Incidentally, it is interesting to recall that when I saw Sir Arthur a similar case to the Beare case had arisen. We had some discussion on the workings of this Section, and he said that in his view it was essential to have legislation by Statute to make clear the position when such circumstances arose.
I do not criticise the High Court judge in any way, but difficulty has arisen over this Section, not so much as it is drawn—because there must be some limitation—but in the way it has been interpreted by the courts, I am sure correctly. The practical effect is an extremely serious one, however, and it has recently been brought to the notice of the public owing to the decision in the case of Re Beare.
In quoting this case, my hon. Friend dealt with it fairly and properly, but I want to read to the House a fuller report of it because there is another point which should be stressed, namely, the hardship which can be created in such a case. I am quoting from the current document on the effects of the Beare case, Current Law for October, 1957:
In Re Beare, Barclays Bank v. Beare (October 3, 1957) the testator and his wife were killed when their car overturned in a ditch. The testator had left a will giving the whole of his property to his wife. The wife had left no will.
This is the point I want to stress:
There were four infant children of the marriage who had survived their parents. There was medical evidence to the effect that the husband, who was seven months older than his wife, died a very short time after her. On the question of the order in which the spouses must be presumed to have died.


Danckwerts J. held that the medical evidence was insufficient to reach a conclusion contrary to the presumption prescribed in such circumstances by s. 184 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, that the elder had predeceased the younger.
I am sure the judge was right in his decision, but the fact remains that as a result of the decision—this was not stressed by my hon. Friend—these four infants suffered very great hardship under the existing law as regards Estate Duty. Therefore, in considering this difficult problem, we must bear in mind that in Many cases we are dealing with the interests of infants.
Quite a lot has been said about the Beare case and how the difficulties which arose there could have been avoided by Mr. Beare making a proper will. If he had made a will in a form which is known to most practising lawyers, the difficulty would probably have been overcome. I feel strongly that the State has a duty to assist people who are ignorant of the law, although I am all in favour of people consulting solicitors in order to make wills. I do not think it is a responsibility which should be thrown on the individual.
It is said by most lawyers that one thing that they all desire is a case in which a testator has made his own will because it is almost inevitable that a self-made will will lead to litigation. That is probably a very fair truism. I certainly feel that the State has a responsibility in this matter. I do not know the circumstances of Mr. Beare's will, but it might have been a will that he made himself. There is a common form of will in which one leaves everything to one's wife. In such cases as these the State has a duty to assist the individual.
Reference has been made to the position which arises in the case of intestacy. It is clear in the law as it stands that the position under the intestacy Acts is much more satisfactory than it is if a will has been made. The intestacy law enacts that if two people die simultaneously and there is no evidence to the contrary, it shall be held that the estate does not pass from one to the other, and, therefore, no double duty is payable. That seems to be a very sensible and reasonable way to approach the matter.
It is proper to point out that under Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1914, a relief is given against double death duty,

on a graduated scale, where double deaths occur within five years. That seems a very sensible and equitable way to deal with the matter. Under that section a maximum relief of 50 per cent. was given. I should have thought that that was wrong and that it was a matter which should be reconsidered. For some reason which those of us who were not present at the time do not know, the relief applies only to land or business. It does not apply to an insurance policy, shares or furniture. I stress that because I think it is very important.
The Bill provides that where two persons die within one month as a result of the same accident there shall be a 95 per cent. rebate in duty. The only comment that I have to make on that—my hon. Friend knows that I am all in favour of the Bill—is that where one has a fixed period, such as a month, one always has cases arising of death occurring just after the period. Consequently, I feel that in legislation of this nature one should as far as possible avoid a date as short as a month. I should have preferred a period of three months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) said that that would create great administrative difficulties. I do not see how administrative difficulties of that sort could be great. At all events, I consider a month too short and would have preferred a formula having no fixed date except something in the neighbourhood of five years, as laid down in the 1914 Act.
Although I fully support the Bill and hope it will be given a Second Reading, I suggest that this anomaly and the present problem should be dealt with on a rather wider basis. I feel that if Section 15 of the 1914 Act could be amended a great number of problems would be overcome. The Bill has been difficult to draft, but it is an excellent one and I congratulate my hon. Friend. While I hope it will be given a Second Reading, I trust that the Government will give careful consideration to whether the problem cannot be remedied by means of some amendment of the 1914 Act.

2.6 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) upon having given


us an opportunity to debate at least one of the many injustices perpetrated by existing Estate Duty legislation. I agree that it is the duty of the State to protect its citizens in this respect. They should not be expected to try to wind their way through the very tortuous channels of existing Estate Duty legislation.
I regret to say that even if one takes legal advice about the drawing up of a will one does not always obtain the safeguards that one ought to have. In fact, there is probably as much litigation about wills drawn up by solicitors as there is about wills drawn up by individual laymen themselves. It is a very complicated subject, as anyone who is involved in these matters realises.
Since the abolition of the legacy and succession duties, Estate Duty legislalation has been enshrined in statutes going back as far as the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881. It is true that the principal Act, passed in 1894, still applies in most cases, but it has been amended so often that to ascertain liability to Estate Duty one has to wade through a mass of amendments, to have a knowledge of a vast amount of case law, to know something about the provisions of about 62 Finance Acts and other main Acts, and to have a knowledge of numerous orders relating to such matters as double taxation relief, and so on. It is quite beyond the capacity of the ordinary individual, and, I suggest, beyond that of many solicitors, to provide safeguards against all contingencies which may arise.
My objection to the Bill, the principle of which I support, is that it adds another complication. It seems to provide a rich source for future litigation which can advantage no one except the legal profession. I have sometimes thought that one of our troubles is that so much of our legislation is introduced in the House of Commons by members of the legal profession, as a result of which they ensure for themselves very lucrative careers for many years, sometimes for centuries ahead. Perhaps that is slightly unfair.

Major Hicks Beach: Very.

Mr. Hall: I apologise if I have hit too hard below the belt.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman is far too moderate.

Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham referred to Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1914, which deals with quick succession relief and enables a certain amount of relief to be given to a second beneficiary over a period of five years on a descending scale. Section 30 of the Finance Act, 1954, gave some further relief in that respect in the case of holdings in private companies. I feel that the principle which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion has in mind might be better served if we amended Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1914.
I want to deal with one or two provisions of the Bill which offers tax relief in the case of those who die as the result of the same calamity. First, how is "calamity" to be defined? I know precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion has in mind. He is thinking of an accident in which two people are killed simultaneously, or as near simultaneously as can be ascertained. But a calamity could easily be an epidemic and two people might die simultaneously as the result of an epidemic, but be miles apart at the time. Is that to be a calamity? There will be a great deal of argument about that.
Another difficult problem arises when two people have an accident and one is killed outright and one is apparently not seriously injured, but, within the time laid down, the survivor, who appears to have recovered, suddenly dies of pneumonia. In such a case, there would be long legal argument about whether the pneumonia was caused by the accident, or was due to a quite different cause not associated with the original accident. From time to time, there would be similar complications and decisions would be very difficult.
If the existing Finance Act, 1914, were amended, there would be a number of beneficial effects. It would be far better to allow the present five-year period as the benefit period. One could also take advantage of the change in the rate which the Bill proposes—a reduction of 95 per cent.—by substituting the existing scale under Section 15 of the 1914 Act and reducing death duty in respect of any successor dying within the first twelve months after the death of the original testator by 95 per cent., instead of 50 per cent. as now, and scaling up the remain-


ing years to the end of the five-year period.
The real problem we face today is the fact that Estate Duty is confiscatory in character. The matter is so complicated that it requires a complete revision of all the legislation as it exists today, not only to make it more understandable, but to make it more just. Let us take, for example, the gamble of the five-year gift. Many people are apparently suffering from an anxiety neurosis and adding to the dangers of their existence by the mere thought of dying before the five years is up. It seems to be far more just for Estate Duty to be assessed on the unexpired portion of the five-year period so that if the donor dies after, say, four years, the recipient of the original gift would have to pay only one-fifth of the duty.
It might be far better to abolish Estate Duty altogether and to revert to legacy duty, assessing tax at the rate applicable to the particular gift in the hands of the recipient. I was very interested, when in Eastern Germany recently and talking to officials of the Ministry of Finance there, to find out that that is the system adopted in that Communist country. It may be that they think that no one in a Communist country will ever accumulate sufficient money by the hardest possible work and thrift to yield very much in the way of death duties, but it is interesting to find that they have a system of legacy duty which is much less onerous and much less hard on the legatees or beneficiaries than is our existing system.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The Bill refers only to two deaths and not to single deaths.

Mr. Hall: I mentioned that as a point of interest and to illustrate some of the difficulties and problems of death duties.
I was about to point out that under the Bill an injustice which now exists when two people die together and which results in their successors having to pay an excessive amount of Estate Duty can be put right, but it could be put right more easily by amendments to existing legislation. This is not a small injustice. We have to remember the scales of Estate Duty which now have to be paid.
Section 15 of the 1914 Act refers specifically to the relief in the case of quick succession and yet in that year death duties started at about 4 per cent. on

an estate of £5,000, were 7 per cent. on an estate of £50,000, and 10 per cent. on an estate of £100,000, to quote three examples. Today, the rates are 3 per cent. on estates over £5,000, 35 per cent. on estates over £50,000, and 50 per cent. on estates over £100,000. On the whole, the rates have been increased by about five times, despite the fact that the value of money has probably fallen by as many times or more. One would have expected that the rates would have gone down rather than up. That illustrates the savage effect of Estate Duty and emphasises, if emphasis were needed, the necessity of Measures of this kind and reforms of the existing law.
There seems to be an attitude of mind today which can be summed up in the following way: a man who tries to make money is often described as being money-mad; if he keeps it, he is described as a capitalist; if he spends it, he is often called a play-boy; if he does not try to get it, he is told that he lacks ambition; if he gets it without working for it, he is a parasite; if he accumulates it after a lifetime of hard work and thrift, he is often told that he is a fool not to have got the best out of life. When one realises the deprecations of the Treasury on his estate after his death, one is inclined to think that the last definition of the man who has tried to make and save money may be correct.
If that is so, it is a pity, because it is a great pity to have a system which encourages people to spend what they have and not to develop the habit of thrift. I want to conclude with a short extract from one of Chesterton's poems which is well-known and of which one is sometimes reminded when dealing with the Treasury about tax matters, especially about Estate Duty matters. I want to quote what seem to me appropriate verses.
The poem is entitled "On England" and the verses I want to quote are:
They have given us into the hands of the new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.


That seems to be an appropriate description of the Treasury when dealing with Estate Duty. The concluding lines of the poem, which I have slightly paraphrased, are:
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, tax us, pass us. But do not quite forget.
While supporting the Bill in principle, because it does remedy some small part of one of the injustices we suffer, I hope that the Treasury, as represented by my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, will take account of the many hardships suffered under existing legislation and will not quite forget those who have to pay such heavy taxes today.

2.20 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) on putting forward the Bill. I express to him my sympathy for the unfortunate cold from which he is so obviously suffering, and I wish him a speedy recovery. I would riot follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) in advocating a complete reform of the laws of inheritance; I think that the task would be almost beyond us, and the final result might be even less happy than the unhappy condition in which we find ourselves today.
I want to put in a word for those persons who have to operate in the Treasury and take part in discussions, agreements and the necessary arguments about Estate Duty. They are bound by the law and the regulations. Their own private view—if they have one—may be that the law operates, in some cases very harshly, as indeed it does, but the Ministers have no power to say, "This is a hard case; I propose to ignore the law. I shall do my duty, and although Parliament says that this must not be done, I shall come to a totally different conclusion." They must say, "This is the law. I did not make it, but I have to enforce it in this way."
This is a problem which has affected many countries for hundreds of years. It has been dealt with in different ways, and I do not propose to go through the history again; it has already been touched upon by the proposer and seconder of the Bill.

But it has always resulted in very great hardship when, as the Bill states, the deaths
are the result of some one and the same calamity.
Nowadays, when Estate Duty is so very high, it results in many cases in the financial crippling of a family and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) said, the infants and the young people suffer most of all.
How are we to remedy this difficulty? Whenever we want to amend the law to deal with a hard case we must be careful not to make the resulting position worse than the original position. It is a truism that hard cases make bad law. This is undoubtedly a hard case, and we must, therefore, be very careful not to make bad law when we deal with it.
I want to add to the warning which my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has already given, namely, that Clause 1 (c) is very difficult to follow when applied to individual cases. The cases which the draftsmen had in mind were those where two people are concerned in the same accident and both die at approximately the same time. That is fairly clear, but what is a calamity?
Can a loose stair rod cause a calamity if the husband, as he goes downstairs, falls, and, later, before the rod has been replaced, the wife also falls downstairs, and both break their necks in the process? It is undoubtedly a calamity that a careless person pulled out the rod, or that it happened to come out by accident, and two deaths result, but I do not think that the Bill was drafted to meet the case. Nevertheless, I think that it would cover it.
Then, again, the phrase that the deaths
are the result of some one and the same calamity
is very ambiguous and sweeping. As one hon. Member has said, it may be that a person is killed in an accident and this is such a shock to the spouse that he or she has a heart attack and dies. In one sense that is the result of the calamity, but in another it is a result of the news of the calamity. I can see an interesting point of law arising there. I should hesitate to give an opinion in the matter. Lawyers could argue about it for some time, but the last place in which to argue it would be this House.
Again, if we produce a Bill to alleviate a hard case we shall produce other hard cases. The Bill provides an arbitrary period of one month. Those who operate the Estate Duty laws cannot say, if a person dies one month and one day after the spouse, "This is a very hard case. It is only a few hours outside the period, therefore we propose to take alleviating action." They have no power to do so. They are bound by the terms of the Bill, if it becomes an Act. In that event, we shall perhaps have another private Member, or a Government, bringing forward another Bill to deal with that hard case. Those are merely points of particular criticism in what I regard as a sound Bill, which is, at any rate, a genuine effort to deal with a very great hardship.
I do not know whether the calamities of today are any worse than those that occurred in past ages. It is true that we have aeroplanes, but we have fewer terrible accidents. Train smashes are all too familiar, but they are not so frequent as they were in the last century. Even stage coaches were not immune from accidents. The point is, however, that in those days, when Estate Duty was so much lower, if two people died as a result of the same calamity it was not considered to be the same hardship as it is today, because there would probably still be a healthy part of the estate left and it would, therefore, not be necessary to have separate legislation to deal with the problem.
Nowadays, however, when Estate Duty is so cripplingly high in any event—indeed, it is not unfair to describe it as a form of capital levy, because a levy is taken from the capital—the Bill certainly becomes necessary, especially when the incomes of husband and wife are not taxed separately. The present situation really becomes rather ridiculous. There are many cases where, partly for this reason, husband and wife will not travel in the same aeroplane. If they are going to Paris one will fly by Air France and the other by B.E.A. The same consideration may not apply in the case of ocean liners, but it certainly applies to air travel.
They travel separately partly because, if they do die at the same time, there will be nobody left to care for their children, but also partly because their children may be left financially embarrassed. I there-

fore support the Bill and commend it as going some way towards alleviating a great hardship, but I add, as a word of caution, that we must be careful not to make bad law out of a hard case. I hope that the Bill will be very carefully considered and improved in Committee.

2.28 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) said, the Bill has the support not only of hon. Members of the Conservative Party but also of the Liberals and some distinguished hon. Members of the Labour Party. I say at once that we do not accept the general diatribe against Estate Duty which was made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) but there are, within the ambits of Estate Duty, injustices which require consideration. Whether an injustice occurs in questions of Estate Duty or in questions of wages, I hope that the Government will be as open-minded and sympathetic towards remedying it as are hon. Members on this side.
I do not know what the cost of reform on the lines proposed by the Bill would amount to, but I assume that if it were anything less than £50 million it would be regarded as chicken-feed, and that we could expect to have action from the Government.
I hope that if the Government are to deal sympathetically with the principle of the Bill they will deal equally sympathetically with the case of Health Service employees where there is a manifest injustice as between one set of employees and another. It is in that spirit, as I say, that I hope the Government will approach the Bill, and it is in that spirit that we on this side of the House approach it.
I agree at once with the criticisms made by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) about the Bill. I do not think it would be putting it too high to say that the Bill, as a technical production, is almost a shambles. I do not see how the Government can accept the Bill. However, I propose to treat it as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion invited the House to treat it, as a discussion on principle with a view, perhaps, to the Government dealing with the proposal, because


it is, above all, a proposal which should be dealt with by the Government and in a Finance Bill and not by a Private Member's Bill on the lines put forward today.
The Bill contains proposals for dealing with an injustice arising out of common calamity. I agree at once and will not repeat the criticisms made, particularly by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, of "common calamity" and the difficulty to which it gives rise. As I understand, there are two aspects of common calamity. First, there are the people who die together, and, secondly, the people who die one after another after a comparatively short interval of time. I make that distinction between the two because in the Finance Acts as they at present exist there are those two distinctions.
The injustice does not arise because there is a calamity—let us be perfectly clear about that—in which two people die. The injustice arises because, as the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew), I think, pointed out, there is such a short interval of time for the enjoyment of the property which passes from one to the other. Therefore, I hope that in any Bill dealing with the matter these very contentious and misleading references to common calamity will be eliminated. The essence of the matter is not common calamity, but the elimination of enjoyment of the property. That is the calamity from the Estate Duty point of view.
I will deal, first, with those who die at the same time, but I shall be very brief because I know that there is another important Bill coming before the House. In existing legislation on intestacy, where husband and wife die together double Estate Duty is not levied. Therefore, we have that principle recognised in one small class of case.
Secondly, as I understand the matter under the 1894 Finance Act, if, for example, there is under a settlement a gift to A for life and then to B for life, and then other limitations in the settlement, and if A and B die together again double Estate Duty is not levied. That being so, we have in the Finance Acts another instance where double Estate

Duty is not levied when people die together.
I should have thought that what is required is consideration of whether that principle which is embodied on intestacy and under settlements should be expanded to apply to other cases. I must say that I cannot see the justification, although there may be one, for limiting the non-levying of double Estate Duty to those two kinds of cases.
I now come to the second point where there is, in fact, survival, but where one person dies a short time after another, whether by reason of common calamity or not. My approach to this part of the Bill is very much on the lines taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach), that is to say, the lines laid down in Section 15 of the 1914 Finance Act where provision is made on a sliding scale for relief from Estate Duty where one person dies within periods up to five years after another.
The present maximum relief is the 50 per cent. reduction in Estate Duty if the person to whom property passes dies within twelve months of the person from whom the property passes. Surely what should be considered is that when a person dies within a shorter period than twelve months there should be a greater increase than the 50 per cent. in the concession. I sympathise more with the approach of the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham than I do with the approach made by the Bill. Of course, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out, Section 15 of the 1914 Act is limited to cases of land and business for the reason, as I understand, that if that concession were not made it might lead to difficulty in handling the land or dealing with the business. But that is not a reason which appeals to me for limiting the concession to land and business.
Why should this be so simply because there is an embarrassment or because an embarrassment might arise in the case of land or business? The same embarrassment might easily arise in other ways—in the realising of shares or of any other thing in which the property happens to be locked up. Why the concession in the amount of Estate Duty should be made in that case instead of a concession in time in which the duty can be paid, I completely fail to understand.
I sympathise, as I say, with the approach of the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham; I do not understand why the concession is limited to land and business. I hope, therefore, that, whatever is the fate of the Bill today, the matter will be dealt with not in the last resort by a Private Member's Bill, but by the Government. I hope that the Government will tell us what cost involved, and that if the matter is to be dealt with by the Government it will be dealt with along the lines of the 1894 and 1914 Acts which deal with people who die together or who die within a very short period of one another.
I think that there is a case here for consideration, and because we consider that there is such a case we on this side of the House will certainly not oppose the Bill. Indeed, as I have said, some hon. Members on this side have put down their names in support of the Bill. However, I would remind hon. Members opposite particularly that when it comes to dealing with injustice as between one person or one set of people and another on wage claims, or whatever we are dealing with, they will be equally as sympathetic to these invidious pieces of injustice as we are in this case.

2.40 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I would add my congratulations to those which have been so justly offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) upon having introduced the Bill, as he did, in such a very able, clear, and human speech. It has led not only to an extremely useful debate upon the hardship in the particular case which gave rise to the Bill, but to a very interesting discussion upon Estate Duty and the reliefs which might be given in cases where persons have died in a common disaster or in quick succession.
The Government understand and sympathise with the feelings expressed by my hon. Friend. The Beare case was very hard. Mr. and Mrs. Beare died together in a motoring accident, leaving four children. No evidence was found by the court sufficient to show which of the two survived the other. Accordingly, by operation of a fiction of the law—a necessary fiction, as hon. Members who have experience in this branch of the law would agree—the husband, who was a

few months older than his wife, was presumed to have died first. This rule was laid down by Section 184 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, for determining title to property in cases where it is uncertain which of two or more persons survived the others.
The Chancery Division held that the rule applied in this case. The husband had left his property absolutely to his wife by will. The result was that the property passed twice, first to the wife and then, on her intestacy, to their four children. In consequence, there was a double charge of Estate Duty on the husband's property, since the duty is levied on the passing of a life. It is only fair to point out that there was some relief under the quick succession provisions which have been mentioned in the debate. The House will understand that I cannot give details in the case of any particular taxpayer. The hardship was to some extent mitigated, but I do not pretend that no hardship remained.
We were all rather shocked that the Exchequer was entitled to two lots of Estate Duty at the expense of children whose parents had been killed in such tragic circumstances. The double claim does not arise out of any provision of Estate Duty law. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) made that point clear. It arises from the general law.
Hon. Members may wonder why this matter has never been raised before. Only in a very few cases is this situation likely to occur. As the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, pointed out, the case where husband and wife die without leaving a will is outside the operation of Section 184 of the Law of Property Act and is covered by the Intestates' Estate Act, 1952, which ensures that property shall not pass from husband to wife or vice versa if they die intestate and it is not certain which survived the other.
Where there is a will, the testator, if he is competently advised, usually provides against the possibility of this sort of case, either by granting his wife a life interest, which is quite usual in cases where there are children, or by providing that the gift shall not be effective unless the wife survives him by, say,


a month. And even in some of the few cases which do occur there may be no financial hardship to the beneficiaries, who are by no means always children. Nor am I being cynical when I say that beneficiaries who are not close relations often experience an actual advantage because the property comes to them rather more quickly by reason of the common disaster.
Nevertheless, it has been made abundantly clear in the debate that there is a hardship here which merits the consideration of the Legislature and of the Government. I agree that there is a strong case for preventing such a situation happening again. On the other hand. I am bound to say two things. The first is, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion will agree—and I shall not repeat the details—that the drafting of the Bill has been subjected to great scrutiny by well-wishers of the principle which my hon. Friend has upheld. I will not repeat the criticisms made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) of the word "calamity", which raises very great difficulties of construction. It recalls Robertson Hare; and as in the case of his "Oh, calamity‡" it seems to cover a very wide range of circumstances.
Another point was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, which I think is just. It is this. This is the sort of reform which ought to be made by the Government in a Finance Bill and in the context of a general review of the fiscal structure. On the other hand, my hon. Friend is entitled to some assurance that the matter will be dealt with in that way. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that it is his intention to deal with this problem in the forthcoming Finance Bill. I do not say that it will necessarily be dealt with by the method adopted in the Bill, but it will be dealt with in the spirit in which my hon. Friend has approached it.
There are at least three ways in which it could be dealt with. The first is merely by Amendment of Section 184 of the Law of Property Act. There has already been inroad made into that Section by the Intestates Estate Act, 1952.

On the other hand, this is a general rule of succession. It does not by any means apply only to Estate Duty cases. It was enacted to deal primarily with cases of benefit by will. As I understand, according to the common law, whether the property was given by will or otherwise and it was uncertain whether the donee survived the donor, the onus was on the donee to prove that he had survived.
In cases of common disaster that led to very great hardship and imposed onus not only in such cases, but in cases of general calamity, in which it was uncertain which of the two had survived the other. In many cases the property did not go where it was intended to go and where justice demanded that it should go. It is necessary to have some rule of law in these cases which will mark out how the property shall pass. For that reason we have the rule that the younger is deemed to survive the older.
Although my right hon. Friend has by no means made up his mind on this matter, I would suggest that there are disadvantages—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas indicated assent.

Mr. Simon: —I am very glad to see that the hon. and learned Member, with his wide experience in this branch of the law agrees—in dealing with it by interfering with the law of succession.
The second way in which the matter could be dealt with is one which has found considerable favour in the course of this debate. It was mentioned particularly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East. That is an adaptation of the quick succession relief constituted by Section 15 of the 1914 Finance Act. I will not trouble the House by reading it, but it provides for relief on a sliding scale depending on the interval between the deaths—50 per cent. when the second death occurs within 12 months, 40 per cent. when it occurs between one or two years, and so on. Of course it would be possible to have a higher scale, as has been suggested, for deaths separated by less than twelve months, even rising, as the Bill suggests, to 95 per cent. for deaths occurring within one month.
The disadvantages of the provision of the 1914 Act are threefold. First, it is extremely complicated and difficult to administer. Secondly, it must be the same property which passes. If the property has changed in its nature between the two deaths, the Section does not apply. Thirdly, as has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East and my hon. and learned Friend, it applies only to certain types of property, to land and businesses. I think that the reason for that was that at the time of the passing of the 1914 Act they were types of property which were not easily realisable, but whether that criterion and differentiation are still valid I think is a matter for argument.
A fourth disadvantage of that Section is that it does not prevent aggregation. Although there is a relief, the property passing is still aggregated with the main estate and, therefore, may attract a higher rate of duty. I am bound to say that not only would a provision on these lines be very complicated, but it would be quite expensive. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East asked how much it would cost. I cannot give him precise figures at this stage, but it would be a matter of millions, rather than of thousands, of pounds.
There is a third way of dealing with the problem, which I mention for the consideration of the House. This is quite a short provision to eliminate the second charge on Estate Duty arising out of the operation of Section 184 of the Law of Property Act. That seems to be clearly justifiable on the ground that the double charge in these cases arises out of a pure technicality—a legal presumption as to the order of deaths—which may, of course, not correspond at all with the facts. It would merely put the parties in the same position as regards Estate Duty liability as they would have been in under Section 1 of the Intestates Estate Act, 1952, if the elder had died intestate.
That would be a simple provision, which seems to me to be a great advantage in this branch of the law, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) pointed

out, is already over-complicated to administer, and its cost would be negligible. It would deal with the hard cases, such as the Beare case which prompted my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion to introduce this Bill.
My right hon. Friend proposes to deal with this matter in the Finance Bill, although he has not determined whether one of these three methods, or even some other method, may be the appropriate way. In those circumstances, and in view of the fact that these matters are better dealt with in a Finance Bill, and the drafting of this Bill has been subjected to stringent, although friendly, criticism, I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether, having heard what I have said, he should withdraw it at this stage and see what happens in the Finance Bill. As I recognise there is a case for remedy, I cannot ask the House to reject this Bill if my hon. Friend wishes to get a Second Reading, but I would ask him then to consider whether it would be really profitable to pursue the matter in Committee. Having heard what I hope he feels to be a fairly forthcoming attitude on the part of the Government, I would ask him whether the proper course would not be to withdraw this Bill and rely on action being taken in the Finance Bill.

Mr. Teeling: Personally, I would prefer to go on with the Second Reading and then to leave the question of dealing with the Bill in Committee until we find what the problems will be. I have learned with great interest of all the difficulties which will now obviously arise from the drafting of my Bill. At the same time, there will be plenty of opportunity, should it be necessary, to deal with it, but I am certain that my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend will carry out their promises and that there will be no need to go on after Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

OFFICES REGULATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.58 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am sorry that so important a Measure cannot receive more time for discussion, but I suppose that for a third Bill on a Friday I must be grateful or thankful that I at least have an opportunity to move the Second Reading.
In moving the Second Reading, I speak with considerable feeling, because the only work to which I have been accustomed since I left school at the age of fourteen and until I came to the House is work in an office. I worked as a boy of fourteen under very unsatisfactory conditions, working in an office from seven in the morning until six at night for 6s. a week. I moved thankfully to better circumstances, and before I reached this House I had been working in ideal conditions with Messrs. Cadbury Bros. Ltd. of Bournville, Birmingham. I have always felt that this great section to which I have always belonged has not had a fair deal throughout the years.
This subject has been before the House on a number of occasions, but the last occasion on which an Offices Regulation Bill was before the House was nearly 22 years ago, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), whom I am very glad to see in his place this afternoon, had the opportunity of presenting a Private Member's Bill. For a few moments, I should like to refer to some of the points which he put to the House at that time, because they all apply today.
Between 1923 and 1936, eleven Bills had been presented to the House, but the last was that introduced by my right hon. Friend and supported by all the clerical and non-manual workers' unions in the country. When he moved the Second Reading, my right hon. Friend made three points which I want to emphasis today. First, he said,
There is practically no systematic or routine inspection of offices today…any old place may be used as an office without let or hindrance…there are no regulations governing the inspection of offices.

Secondly,
there is a marked tendency among clerical workers towards tuberculosis, digestive and nervous disorders.
Thirdly,
the death rate among clerks in commercial offices is almost double what it is in agriculture.
I mention those points, brought to the House 22 years ago, because today the situation is worse. We have suffered a world war which has added enormously to the difficulties which clerical workers have to endure. It is interesting to recall that on that occasion the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is the present Minister of Education, made a statement which I ask the hon. and learned Member the present Under-Secretary of State to consider. I do not quote the speech in any carping manner, because I am certain that when he made it the present Minister of Education believed that legislation would be forthcoming to put the position right for the black-coated workers. As reported in column 2560 on 13th March, 1936, the right hon. Gentleman said:
…the Committee have produced a draft Bill, a copy of which I have here. It covers the whole of these questions and many others, and fully meets the representations which the Home Office made with regard to those doubts. It defines a work-place as any place in which persons are employed otherwise than in domestic service, and I think hon. Members will agree that that covers offices. In Clause 280, it makes a clear and definite provision in relation to powers of entry and inspection which cannot fail to remove all possible doubt as to the power of local authorities inspectors to engage in systematic inspection of offices, and not be dependent upon casual complaints."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1936; Vol. 309, c. 2495–2560.]

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): On what occasion was my right hon. Friend speaking?

Mr. Yates: He was speaking on 13th March in reply to the debate on the Offices Regulation Bill, the Second Reading of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield moved. That was in column 2560. He went on to say that if the Bill were passed the whole question of offices would come under the observation of inspectors, and added that there would gradually be accumulated a body of knowledge in regard to the real conditions in offices.
I refer to that only because it was ten years later that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) set up a Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers, which was able to show beyond doubt that what had been thought to be the case in 1936 was certainly not the case in 1946. The Gowers Committee investigated the facts and reported in 1949. Paragraph 16 of its Report reads:
The interpretation of 'workplace' is uncertain. There are no specific requirements as to lighting, temperature, or facilities for washing or for taking meals, all of which have a direct bearing on health. The general character of the acts, moreover, is negative rather than positive: that is to say, an impression is created (rightly or wrongly that all the owner, occupier or employer has to do is to see that conditions are not so bad as to be a nuisance or actively prejudicial to health, and that local authorities have no power to intervene unless they are.
In paragraph 17, the Committee goes on to say:
These arguments are reinforced in the case of London by the fact that it is doubtful whether under the Public Health (London) Act routine inspections of offices (as distinct from inspections based on specific complaints) can legally be carried out.
The Committee went on to make recommendations, based on the model of the Factories Act, 1937, which, it said, was
…a model in its own field of what protective legislation can accomplish.
Those recommendations were made in 1949, and the Minister will see that they are all recommendations that have been considered by the Home Office, the Trades Union Congress and other interested bodies. Those main recommendations are embodied in this Bill.
The matter has been the subject of no less than six deputations from the Trades Union Congress. Two deputations saw Lord Kilmuir, then the Home Secretary, two saw Lord Tenby, who then held that office, one deputation went to see Sir Anthony Eden, and a deputation has seen the present Prime Minister. It will be seen that nine years have passed without those recommendations being carried out.
As a private Member, I have not been able to put into the Bill any Clause which would cost the taxpayer money. That is the difficulty. It means that the

Bill may not have the teeth which a sympathetic Government can give to such a Measure. Clause 1 says:
The Secretary of State shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, make regulations specifying the standards as to structure, arrangement and operation to be applied in every office for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of persons employed on the basis of the minimum requirements described in the First Schedule to this Act.
In Part II, I am making special provision regarding the fencing of dangerous machinery which is now being introduced into offices, the prevention of injury from electrical equipment, protection against the lifting of excessive weights, and the
Prohibition of the employment of women before and after childbirth",
which closely follows the recommendation of the Gowers Committee's Report.
I realise that the minimum standards laid down can be the subject of discussion if the matter goes to Committee. In regard to the enforcement of the regulations, Clause 14 of the Bill provides as follows:
Any provision of this Act or any regulation made by the Secretary of State under this Act shall be enforced by such authority and administered in such manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe.
I will say no more about the Bill, because I know hon. Friends of mine also desire to speak.
Why is this subject even more vitally necessary today than when it was last raised in the House? There was another Bill a few years ago which covered agricultural workers, shop workers and office workers. My Bill relates only to offices. The Bill is more vital today because unfortunately conditions are worse. The Second World War did so much damage to London that one-third of the floor space for offices and commercial warehousing was completely destroyed by bombs. That means that 84 million square feet of floor space was reduced to 57 million square feet in London alone. I am assured that all the plans for the rebuilding of London, when carried out in two years' time, will replace only half of the buildings destroyed.
I was invited by the City Press to inspect some of London's offices. I had no idea that there were such shocking conditions today in London. In fact, the Press office itself was, I thought, a terrible disgrace to any firm. Frankly,


if those conditions existed in a factory the employer or the owner would be prosecuted under the Factories Acts. In the Stock Exchange area alone, hundreds of mirrors hang outside the dingy buildings to reflect the light into the dismal buildings. I was so intrigued by this that I went into an accountant's office next to the Mansion House. This accountant's office was in a building which had been occupied by the Lord Mayor of London in 1757. I asked the accountant if he could explain to me how these mirrors could be of value, and he demonstrated how, if they were taken away, the light which was the greatest craving would be taken away from the office. The Gowers Committee said:
Good lighting is an investment which pays handsome dividends to employers, and does not benefit their staffs alone.
In London alone my Bill would be justified, but in Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester—in fact, all the great cities—there are frightening conditions not only in the offices of private employers but even in municipal offices. For instance, the City Council of Birmingham would do well to examine the conditions under which their clerks are working in the basement office of the council house.
If we looked further we would find that in other cities similar conditions obtain. I am told, for instance, that the Manchester fire authority is extremely afraid of the danger of fire in some of the old buildings. Perhaps more office blocks have been built in Liverpool—I do not know—but these evil conditions exist in every city.
I should like to quote one or two examples of the sort of conditions which exist. I have before me the result of an examination of the conditions under which the clerks are working in the Finance Department and the Supplies Department of the National Coal Board in Abercarn in Wales. There the clerks have been housed in a hut. They have been asking for improvements for nine years, and I was informed on 18th December:
The buildings were originally infested with vermin and after a couple of years of the use of rat poison, the vermin is still present. Further to all these points, and in spite of them, the Board, instead of erecting the long-promised new offices of brick construction, are erecting more huts to accommodate staff. There is as yet no sign of any toilet facilities for these huts.

This is a public undertaking. I am only mentioning these facts to show that not only private but public and municipal undertakings are affected.
Let me quote as a further example a case which came to my knowledge only yesterday concerning a Midland town. I was informed:
The building in which I work was once a row of cottages now converted into offices. The main offices are on the top floor and consist of the general office approximately 5 yards by 4 yards, accommodating two wages clerks, one counter cashier, an accounts clerk, one Comptometer operator, one shorthand typist and one junior. The costs office containing two people is 2½ yards by 3 yards. Only cold water is available here. There are no waste bins, and toilet rolls are only supplied on request, whoever would have thought that such conditions could exist?
It is not difficult to appreciate that such conditions must adversely affect the health of clerical workers. According to the census of 1951, there are 2,341,319 clerks and typists, and, of course, if those who work in shops and the offices of shops are included, the figure would be well over 4 million. Moreover, those figures do not include bank managers, stockbrokers, civil servants, local government officials or even railway workers.
According to the Registrar-General's Report for England and Wales of 1951, which was published by the Stationery Office in 1954, the incidence of respiratory tuberculosis amongst clerks is 38 per cent. higher than the average for the country. The incidence among agricultural workers is 42 per cent. below the average. Furthermore, the incidence of anaemia, according to the figures, is twice as heavy among clerical workers as it is among agricultural workers. The average mortality rate from rheumatic heart disease, coronary heart disease, pneumonia, ulcers, diseases of the liver and nephritis, is higher among clerical workers than the average for the country, according to the Registrar-General's figures.
The incidence of sickness is equally bad. The number of spells of incapacity due to sickness among males employed in agriculture is, I am told, nine per 10,000; for all workers it is 33 per 10,000, and for clerical workers it is 47 per 10,000.
Those are facts which justify my decision to use my opportunity through


the Ballot to bring this Bill before the House. The white-collared workers have become the "Cinderellas" of the Welfare State. They are a section of mankind to some extent in captivity. I congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary upon his appointment, and I hope that he will be able to give some help to these workers, many of whom are caged up, unable to enjoy the fresh air which God intended all creatures to enjoy as far as possible in their work.
I know that the Government are, in principle, sympathetic to the claims which have been made by all the trade unions. How long are we to wait for some action? There was an interesting article published in The Times on 2nd December, which said:
It has still to be asked whether their status"—
that is to say, the non-manual staffs—
should be allowed to decline to an extent which results in widespread cynicism and dissatisfaction. Are they to be tempted to try to improve their position by a militant trade unionism? Is industrial action necessary to compel the Government to legislate on office conditions?
My answer to The Times is, "Surely not". This is the way in which we must meet the demands on this considerable section of the community. I trust that in principle this Bill will be accepted and that those who have been at the back of the queue for protection against unfair unhealthy conditions will at least have some hope from this debate.
Alexander Pope said:
Hope springs eternal in the human breast:
Man never is, but always to be blest:
I hope the House will be united in doing justice to the black-coated workers of the country by giving a Second Reading to this Bill, and so giving them places which will enable them to live happier, better and healthier lives.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he refer to Clause 17, which he has not mentioned? This excludes Government Departments, but, after all, nowadays an enormous number of workers in the classes he mentioned are employed in Government Departments. [An hon. Member: "That is a Committee point."] No, it is a Clause in the Bill which excludes from the benefits the hon. Gentle-

man is seeking to make all those employed in Government Departments except by special order of the Secretary of State. Will the hon. Gentleman give the reason for inserting that Clause?

Mr. Yates: I should have the greatest possible pleasure to accept an Amendment in Committee. I am not permitted to put anything into the Bill which would cause the Government any expenditure. Unfortunately a private Member must be in that position and, as I said at the beginning, one can only hope. Of course the Government can do that, and I would not think such a provision would exclude the matter from being considered in Committee.

Mr. E. C. Redhead: May I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not also a fact that the Government have virtually agreed with the Civil Service trade unions on standard conditions, through the normal machinery of negotiation, which are approximately of the character incorporated in this Bill.

3.28 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sure that it is the wish of the House that I should congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) not only on his good fortune in the Ballot, but also on the admirable way in which he has presented the case for the Bill. My union, the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union, has been seeking legislation of this kind for nearly fifty years and it would be appropriate if we got the Bill now as a result of the initiative of one of our members. I regret that my hon. Friend's good fortune did not go a little further and give us more time to debate this Bill, but, after all, it is not a contentious one. Today, we are only concerned with the principle, which was endorsed by the unanimous vote of this House in 1955, and both in public and private Her Majesty's Government have expressed themselves in favour of this legislation.
I hope, therefore, that the Joint Under-Secretary will immediately get up at the Box when I sit down and tell us that the Government are prepared to endorse the principle and, if need be, to consult with my hon. Friend on any necessary Amendments in Committee. If the Government will not do that today, then


I must advise office workers generally that the Government are not interested in their conditions, and that the pledges they have given publicly and privately over the years are not to be accepted at their face value.
What we are asking for is very small and very reasonable. It is that non-manual workers shall have a charter equivalent to the Factories Acts for our industrial brethren, and that there shall be inspectors and a procedure of complaint similar to that which they have now enjoyed for over a hundred years.
In view of the time, I will not enlarge upon the excellent case that has been put before us. I wish just to make one point. It is not only in respect of old buildings that we need this legislation. Many new buildings do not conform to reasonable standards. The mot scandalous example of bad office building is provided by the Government. The Queen's Building of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, at London Airport, has office conditions which led to the following comment by Miss Godwin, the General Secretary of my union:
It appears that a number of our members are being housed in boxes devoid of light and air, both of which are subsequently introduced at considerable expense.
The building was erected without proper consultation and without proper conditions. Some of the office block is still not used because the employees will not work in it, and it has been agreed that £40,000 of public money shall be spent to make it reasonable for the office workers. That is a building erected by the Government in 1955. Consequently, it is clear that this legislation is required not only to improve standards in old buildings, but to set a reasonable standard as a guide to the Government in their new building.
I hope that the House will endorse the principle of the Bill today with an unopposed Second Reading and that we may get down in Committee to the real work of making it the kind of Measure that we all desire.

3.32 p.m.

Sir Thomas Moore: This is obviously a non-party Bill; politics are not involved in the decision which we shall shortly make. In moving the Second Reading, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) greatly

impressed us, and, indeed, moved many of us, by his obvious sincerity and the knowledge that he has of this subject. I hope that anything that I may say will not be taken as a criticism of the way he introduced the Bill or the arguments he used. It will merely be a criticism of the Bill as it is now drafted.
The intention behind the Bill is admirable, as we all appreciate, but some of us must complain about the phraseology which is used. Although this may not be intended, it gives the impression that British employers huddle their workers into underground workrooms and deny them adequate heat, suitable light and proper sanitation. It gives the impression that employers force their workers into conditions which no self-respecting worker would tolerate for a minute in these days of full employment.

Mr. David Weitzman: If some employers do so, why should it not be rectified?

Sir T. Moore: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to develop my own argument. If there is time, he may be able to intervene later.
The Gowers Committee reported in 1949, and there were thus two years in which an important Measure of this kind could have been introduced before the Labour Party left office. If the Labour Party thought it was of such importance to all of us, as it obviously is, why did they not avail themselves of the opportunity then afforded to them? This should be a Government Bill—it should not be left to a private Member on a Friday afternoon to introduce it—and it should be drafted by Government draftsmen so that it contains phraseology which will convey to employers exactly what their obligations should be.
There is another point in that connection. The miners and quarrymen demanded attention for the treatment which they obviously merited, but it was left to the Tory Government to bring in the Mines and Quarries Act. Why have we had to wait again for a Tory Government to do what the Labour Government of the time should obviously have done themselves? These points have no bearing on the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I agree, but, at the same time, they raise doubts in the minds of those who study the Bill.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that the Bill is intended to implement the recommendations of the Gowers Committee of 1946
…with certain modifications reached after discussion between interested parties.
The hon. Member for Ladywood mentioned only the Trades Union Congress. I am an interested party and I was not consulted. Was the Federation of British Industries consulted? Was the British Employers' Confederation consulted? As far as I can find out, they were not consulted. They are all interested parties, because they are the employers who will be forced to find the money to undertake the renovations and constructions which the hon. Member for Ladywood said were necessary.

Mr. David Jones: If my hon. Friend looks at page 107 of the Gowers Report he will see that the British Employers' Confederation gave evidence to the Gowers Committee.

Sir T. Moore: I know, but we are talking about the Bill and not about the Gowers Committee.
The Gowers Committee recommended protective devices for dangerous machines according to the standards of the Factories Acts. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that the provisions of the Factories Acts have been adopted. There is the matter of the conditions under which women should be employed for lifting heavy weights. We are all in agreement with the need to do something about that, but the recommendations of the Gowers Committee and what is in the Bill do not coincide.
The weakness of the Bill is bad drafts-manship. We all agree with its intention and with the hon. Member's purpose. My advice is that in the interests of what he seeks to do, he should withdraw the Bill and ask the Government, after consultation with the numerous authorities concerned—

Mr. B. T. Parkin: The hon. Member should ask them, he knows them better.

Sir T. Moore: —to find out whether a new Bill could be drafted to give reasonable effect to what the hon. Member desires and, at the same time, not

to put impossible obligations upon those who will have to undertake them. That is the one suggestion I make. It is wise advice and I hope that the hon. Member will adopt it.

3.39 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I hope that hon. Members will think it appropriate for me to intervene at this stage to state the Government's point of view. Speaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) on his initiative in introducing the Bill; to thank him for the work he has done in its preparation, and to assure him that we respect the motives which have inspired him in introducing it, and what he has said today. We are all familiar with this problem; I suppose that at some time or another nearly all of us have had to work in offices, good or bad.
In view of what has been said by my right hon. Friend, especially in the debate last June, it goes without saying that the Government support the objects of the Bill. We are, indeed, in general favour—as has been said so clearly—with the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. Our sincerity in this matter has been proved by our fine record of legislative and administrative reforms designed to improve working conditions. I shall not weary the House by listing them all; perhaps the most important was the Factories Act of 1937. The most recent improvement was the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act of 1956—and in my last appointment I had to play my humble part in administering the Mines and Quarries Act of 1954.
All Measures of that kind involve a major administrative and legislative exercise. I agree with the hon. Member for Ladywood that the Bill is an important one. It is a very important Bill—as any Bill which sets out to do what this attempts to do is bound to be. A Bill to organise conditions in all offices, especially offices as widely defined as those in the Bill, is bound to be a major exercise.
A major exercise of that kind involves various things. First and foremost, it


Involves consultations between Government Departments, local and other public authorities, and representatives of trades unions and employers' organisations. That consultation is a necessary first step to the making of even the first draft of any such Bill, and that consultation needs to take place both upon matters of principle, in the light of what was said in the Gowers Report, and, to some extent, on matters of detail.
Secondly, before legislation of this kind is introduced decisions need to be taken by the Government at the highest level about such matters as the method of enforcement—whether it shall be by a certain Government Department and, if so, which one—and as to administration and cost.
The Government's own position, in their own numerous and varied offices to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) referred, has to be very fully considered. If I may use a colloquial expression, I would say that that position has been "ducked" entirely by Clause 17. I should have thought that a well-considered Bill, drafted by Government draftsmen—it is bound to be a major Bill—would need to be put before the House by the Government, supported by a Financial Resolution, considered fully in the way that Government Bills always are, and scrutinised by the House.
It therefore follows that it is very doubtful whether a private Members' Bill could ever be suitable for such a major exercise. I agree that private Members' Bills have sometimes been successfully taken over by the Government assisting the private Member, and drafted and amended with the help of Parliamentary draftsmen, and that they have sometimes become Government Bills by the addition of Financial Resolutions. That has been successfully done on occasion, but I feel bound to advise the House that such a procedure would not be suitable for the purposes of this Bill. Even if, having accepted its objects, we tried to adopt that course on this occasion, I am obliged to advise the House that for reasons which I shall enumerate we should not be likely to succeed.
The first reason is that there have not been the necessary full consultations which I mentioned. The second reason is that too many important questions are left unresolved. As I say, Clause 17 leaves unresolved the question of the application of the Bill to the Crown. It would be a very unfortunate thing if the Government were to legislate for higher standards in all offices other than their own, so that is an important question left unresolved.
Then there is the question—Clause 18 of the Bill refers to it—of there being no decision as to the expense of enforcement. Again, there is the third question of any decision as to who shall enforce. Bearing in mind that it would be necessary to dovetail the decisions and the legislation with existing legislation, in which the local authorities as well as the factory inspectors play an important part, we feel that it would be premature for the House to rush in and attempt to amend the Bill.
There is another reason why we feel difficulty about the Bill. If I may put it broadly, without entering into too much detail, we say that the general method of carrying the hon. Gentleman's intention into effect is, with great respect to him, a rather awkward one. I will say more about that, if I may refer to some of the details of the Bill.
If we refer to Clause 10 (1) we find the definition of "office," and that it
includes any room, suite of rooms or premises used wholly or partly for clerical work, including book-keeping, filing, typing, typing…
It may well be that this is a point which could be amended in Committee, but what I have to say about the detail of the Bill has to be considered as part of the general scheme which the hon. Member for Ladywood is putting forward. There we find the word "premises", which is about as broad a term as one can possibly use to define real property. We should find, therefore, that if clerical work were being done on a dockside, such as the checking of goods going into or being taken out of a ship, the provisions of the Bill would have to be applied to the person doing that clerical work. That sort of point would arise at once.
However, a much more serious matter of detail is that in Clause 11. The responsibility for seeing that the Bill is enforced


is to rest upon the occupier of premises. Again, "occupier" is a very wide term in one sense and too narrow in another. I can best illustrate that by citing the case, which is very familiar these days, of a large block of offices which is let off to a considerable number of tenants and which contains services, such as sanitary facilities, shared by all the tenants.
Clearly, it is not by a broad sweep of the brush that we can provide for circumstances of that kind. Very detailed and complicated provisions would be needed to ensure that responsibility lay upon the shoulders of the people in whose hands it lay to rectify the inadequate standard of facilities. I cite that case as just another example of the plan put forward by the hon. Member for Ladywood.
There is also the difficulty, to which I must refer in slightly greater detail, of imposing minimum standards of working conditions. As I see it, the intention of the Bill is that the Home Secretary should be compelled to make regulations, either in the terms of the First Schedule or in some other way more favourable to the office worker. The Home Secretary is given power subsequently to amend those regulations, but only for the purpose of making improvements, presumably from the point of view of the office worker and perhaps quite rightly so.
This limitation on the power to amend regulations is a necessary result of the provision which prevents the Home Secretary from making regulations which do not come up to the minimum standards of the First Schedule. This seems awkward. The regulations are bound to repeat substantially, if not wholly, the precise terms of the First Schedule, especially as the requirements of the Schedule are more onerous than has hitherto been contemplated and are, so far as we know, put forward without prior consultation with those concerned.
I do not want to labour the point too much. It is because of the general unsuitability of the Bill for handling as a Private Member's Bill that I feel obliged to advise the House that the Bill should not be accepted, rather than because of any intrinsic detail. I wish to leave the House in no doubt whatever that the Government accept the need and the

principle which the hon. Gentleman has put forward, and secondly, that we feel bound to advise the House that that need is not adequately or satisfactorily met by the Bill. With the best will in the world we do not see how the Bill can even be drastically amended so as to make it workable.

Mr. Weitzman: In June, 1955, the Minister of Health made, in debate, a promise that recommendations of the Gowers Report would be implemented and a Bill brought forward. What do the Government intend to do?

Mr. Redhead: Is the Minister aware that in an interview with trade union representatives in July, 1955, the then Prime Minister held out a very definite expectation that legislation along these lines would be introduced by the Government in the Session 1956–57? It is now stated that the Bill is to be held up because consultations have not been completed. Perhaps the Minister would explain why the then Prime Minister was able to offer that promise and today the Minister has given us a negative answer.

Mr. David Jones: May I, also, remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 1st April, 1955, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), when he asked my hon. Friend to withdraw his Bill, said:
The Government have already made it clear that it is their intention to introduce legislation of, broadly, the same scope."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1955; Vol. 539, c. 756.]
We are three years from that date, and we have seen nothing.

Mr. Renton: I am aware that the former Prime Minister, in July, 1955, saw a deputation from the Trades Union Congress and did say that legislation on these lines might be introduced in a future Session. [HON. MEMBERS: "Would be."] I am not aware of any specific undertaking being given—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that the legislation would be introduced in any specific Session. We have already announced to Parliament, through the Gracious Speech, a very heavy programme of legislation


for this Session. Nothing would be more unwise than to rush into legislation without adequate preparation and consultation. We are, as I say, proud of the record which we have in this matter, and while thanking the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) once more for his initiative, I regret that I cannot advise the House to accept the Bill.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should like to congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) on coming to the high office that he has now attained. I can only regret the first use he has made of his opportunity.
What is the position in regard to this matter in his Department? Does the Department contemplate ever legislating on this issue? The closing sentences of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech would make one understand that the Department cannot do that. How far have negotiations gone? I initiated negotiations on this matter in 1949. The matter came before the House again in 1955, just before the General Election, when my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) introduced a fairly comprehensive Bill dealing with all the issues raised in the Gowers Report.
We actually had one sitting in Committee before the General Election when, in the frame of mind which overtakes even Tory Ministers just before a General Election, the enthusiasm of the Government for this matter was expressed by the Minister who was in charge of the proceedings on the Bill in Committee. He is now Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the Department in which he was previously, he carried out the undertaking he gave. The hon. and learned Gentleman reports, with a pride in the record of other people's achievement which does not in any way reflect on his own Mate modesty, that the Government were proud that they had done that.
When will the other Departments concerned in this matter get on with their job, particularly for those people who, over the years, have seen increasing legislative protection for the working conditions of nearly all other kinds of salary and wage earners but others of whom have been left in the condition mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) in

his speech today? It is a shameful thing that the Joint Under-Secretary cannot say this afternoon that the Government contemplate, within the lifetime of this Parliament—I do not ask anything more—bringing legislation before this House to redeem the pledge they gave in 1955 just before the General Election.
I can only hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have better luck when next he receives a brief from the office. I can at least thank him for not doing what one of his predecessors did. He gave a promise to us that we would have legislation to deal with the Report by the Royal Commission which considered betting and which has been repudiated since by his Departmental chief and, we understand, is now to be regarded as one of the pledges given to the House only to be broken. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have better luck in a Department which deserves a better Joint Under-Secretary than he has proved himself to be this afternoon.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: In the very short time remaining, I want to pose this question to the Minister. I support the principle of the Bill and agree with a great deal that has been said. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mr. V. Yates). Could not this Bill be sent to a Select Committee in the same way as the Obscene Publications Bill was sent? I quite appreciate that the drafting of the Bill is hopeless, but the hon. Member for Ladywood is not a Parliamentary draftsman—not many of us are.
I support the Bill and think it right that its principles should be carried out, but I would rather that it was sent to a Select Committee. It is almost impossible to amend the Bill and draft it satisfactorily in Standing Committee. If I am in order, Mr. Speaker, I commend that suggestion to the House.

Mr. V. Yates: Mr. V. Yates rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I am in general sympathy with this Bill—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Then sit down".]—but, for reasons which time will not allow me to give—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 7th February.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Four o'clock.